Gun Control

[Butterfree]

I don't have any statistics on gun ownership vs. gun usefulness. However, if a situation were to arise, I would rather have the off-chance of having my gun with me and being able to use it than not having one at all.

"In 2000, 174 children (0-18) in the United States died from unintentional firearm-related injuries." link

That's a lot of kids dying every year so that you can feel (but not necessarily be) a little safer.

It is rather naive to think gun violence mostly happens in situations where the attacker would just have used another weapon if they didn't have a gun and they'd have gotten a gun illegally if they couldn't get one legally. Violence isn't this pretty black-and-white picture where people who commit violent crime are evil ruthless psychopaths and everybody else are good, sane people who would never hurt anyone ever.

The thing is that guns make killing easy. Think of school shootings, for instance: there aren't massive tragic 'school knifings' where guns are banned because knives are not weapons you can just take to school and kill dozens of people with, the way you could with guns. With a gun, a robber who is really just there for the money has a much easier time actually hurting somebody than if they'd threatened the shopkeeper with a knife instead: actually using the knife requires some degree of skill and would force them to come into very close proximity to the victim, whereas using the gun is (in a rough sense) as easy as pointing it and pulling the trigger. Attacking somebody with a gun feels both more detached and safer than attacking somebody with a knife: I'd wager several times more people are psychologically capable of shooting someone than stabbing someone. It would be nice if all murders were committed by people who were determined to kill someone no matter what, but in the real world desperate people sometimes kill other people on spur of the moment, and it's a hell of a lot easier to do that when weapons that make killing a breeze are readily available.

 

[Aobaru]

... Did you even read my post? I stated that my *own country* has an astronomical knife crime rate and almost no gun crime at all. I support what laws are currently in place - you can be jailed for up to five years here for possessing a concealed (or not-concealed) knife in public with intent to harm. 'Intent to harm' also applies to people who carry knives for 'self-defence'. I support sensible levels of knife control.

Fair enough.

So your message is 'protect yourself from being shot!' rather than 'don't shoot people'? What a healthy worldview that is.

It's a realistic worldview. We can all pretend we live in a utopian paradise where no one harbors ill will towards another; if that existed there wouldn't be a need for guns, for self-defense or otherwise.

The irony here is that you live in South Carolina, which has rather lax firearm control laws. If you lived somewhere where guns were banned, the probability of that off-chance would plummet astronomically.

Yes, and that's the problem. Banning guns prevents people from defending themselves.

In other words, you're saying the solution to gun crime is more guns.

No, what I'm saying is that guns are going to be available either way -- illegally or legally -- for those who wouldn't use them for good purposes (trying to sound a little less black-and-white here). So it's better if guns are available, legally, to those who would use them for self-defense purposes.

I'm sure everyone will feel so much better when every random person on the street is walking around with a gun.

I'll tell you who won't feel better: someone trying to rob a random person on the street walking around with a gun.

Well, yeah...? That's totally besides the point.

The point is there are a lot of objects that can harm people besides guns that are totally unregulated. YES, I admit guns are easier but there's a potential for serious harm nonetheless.

... yes, because clearly all criminals are armed with the expertise necessary to build bombs. There is always something else you can use to kill people. Guns just happen to be incredibly convenient! Which is why banning them would be good.

No, it would just force people to invent/find other ways of killing people. It's just human nature.

Also, are you suggesting only 'psychos' kill people with guns?

No, that was just an example. Anyone can kill anyone with just about anything.

EDIT: Just out of curiosity, Aobaru, did you know most European police forces aren't armed with firearms?

No, I did not know that. Is there a point you're trying to make?

That's a lot of kids dying every year so that you can feel (but not necessarily be) a little safer.

"Drowning is the 4th leading cause of accidental death in the United States, claiming 4,000 lives annually. Approximately one-third are children under the age of 14." link

That's a hell of a lot more drownings than accidental shootings. Should we ban childrens' access to pools now? Or maybe it's a parenting issue rather than a pool/gun issue?

 

[Butterfree]

That's a hell of a lot more drownings than accidental shootings. Should we ban childrens' access to pools now?

No, because pools have a genuine utility that arguably outweighs the (ultimately low) possibility of accidents. Note that there was a second half to the sentence you quoted, "so that you can feel (but not necessarily be) a little safer." I would argue that this is ultimately almost no utility at all, unless a significant number of lives are actually directly saved annually thanks to people owning guns for self-defense.

I am also kind of appalled that you neglected to respond to the actual main point of my post.

 

[Aobaru]

No, because pools have a genuine utility that arguably outweighs the (ultimately low) possibility of accidents.

The ability of self-defense from guns outweighs the ~600 accidental deaths annually from them, in my opinion. My bet is more than 600 lives would be lost if guns were banned from people who would use them for self-defense. Though I don't have anything to back this up. Theoretically, though.

I am also kind of appalled that you neglected to respond to the actual main point of my post.

I did, in response to Fluttershy. I admit that guns make killing easier than knives. I don't think anyone in their right mind could dispute that. No need to feel appalled. Also, you didn't respond to my calling accidental deaths a parenting problem.

Think of school shootings

Ironically, most of these take place in "Gun-Free Zones"... just another example of how ridiculous it is to expect those with a desire to harm others to follow the law.

 

[Adriane]

So that's your answer to everything? Just shoot 'em? If someone is attempting to rob you, you would just shoot them? More lives would be lost than saved. And this is the exact attitude issue the United States has that gives it the high rate of gun mortality it has.

Last year in my sociology class, we listened to a 911 call where the caller was reporting a robbery in the next house over. The robbers were two men under the poverty line. The police were on the way, but the caller said he was going to shoot them, despite being told not to. He shot them anyway, and they both died. His neighbourhood hailed him as a hero. To me, that's murder.

Allowing easier access to guns makes people use them -- from barfights and misunderstandings to other petty crimes, more people are going to get shot and killed pointlessly because more people have guns.

 

[surskitty]

Ironically, most of these take place in "Gun-Free Zones"... just another example of how ridiculous it is to expect those with a desire to harm others to follow the law.

Yeah, see, I think DC's handgun ban is relevant here: gun control only means a damn thing if there isn't unrestricted access to places without it. Since searching people as they come to campus is quite frankly a ridiculous suggestion, banning guns on-campus doesn't really ... do anything. It might impede people from keeping them in their dorm rooms, though.

 

[Aobaru]

So that's your answer to everything? Just shoot 'em? If someone is attempting to rob you, you would just shoot them? More lives would be lost than saved. And this is the exact attitude issue the United States has that gives it the high rate of gun mortality it has.

Last year in my sociology class, we listened to a 911 call where the caller was reporting a robbery in the next house over. The robbers were two men under the poverty line. The police were on the way, but the caller said he was going to shoot them, despite being told not to. He shot them anyway, and they both died. His neighbourhood hailed him as a hero. To me, that's murder.

Allowing easier access to guns makes people use them -- from barfights and misunderstandings to other petty crimes, more people are going to get shot and killed pointlessly because more people have guns.

You can't compare shooting someone while getting robbed and shooting someone in a bar fight. One is justifiable, the other is not. But, since the guy in your example wasn't getting robbed himself that's a different story. Unless there were people's lives in danger in the house that was being robbed or something.

To me, it's simple: if someone violates my rights (be it property, by robbery; life, by threatening my life; or liberty, by kidnapping me), I have the right of forceful self-defense. See non-agression principle. "No man can have a right to begin to interrupt the happiness of another. . . .yet every man has a right to defend himself and his against violence, to recover what is taken by force from him, and even to make reprisals, by all the means that truth and prudence permit." And this is my main problem with strict gun control: you take away my right to self-defense, you take away my right to life.

 

[Adriane]

But, since the guy in your example wasn't getting robbed himself that's a different story. Unless there were people's lives in danger in the house that was being robbed or something.

The point was: he had a gun. He shot them because he had a gun. He shot them after being told not to. He used the gun. More things like this would happen if more people have guns.

Not everybody who attempts a robbery has criminal connections to a black market. Many people are just desperate, drunk, or being stupid.

Another thing that happened recently is a few teenagers who went to my high school went driving around in a neighbourhood and started shooting out windows. This illustrates it's not hard for young people to guns and do stupid things with them. Why is it so difficult to grasp that in places with tight gun control, the issues aren't nearly as commonplace?

To me, it's simple: if someone violates my rights (be it property, life, liberty, whatever), I have the right of forceful self-defense.

Yeah, just kill 'em. Great attitude.

 

[Music Dragon]

To me, it's simple: if someone violates my rights (be it property, by robbery; life, by threatening my life; or liberty, by kidnapping me), I have the right of forceful self-defense. See non-agression principle. "No man can have a right to begin to interrupt the happiness of another. . . .yet every man has a right to defend himself and his against violence, to recover what is taken by force from him, and even to make reprisals, by all the means that truth and prudence permit." And this is my main problem with strict gun control: you take away my right to self-defense, you take away my right to life.

Nobody's taking away your right to self-defense, just your right to have a gun. If fewer people had guns you wouldn't be as likely to end up in a dangerous situation in the first place.

 

[Hiikaru]

"In 2000, 174 children (0-18) in the United States died from unintentional firearm-related injuries."

I don't understand why you're quoting this in support of letting everyone have guns. When people keep guns in their home, sometimes they accidentally shoot and kill their children (which doesn't really happen with non-gun things, by the way, so I don't understand why you think guns and knives are exactly the same).

Why do you want that to happen? That's bad.

You know what people in countries with gun control don't do? They don't accidentally shoot their daughter who was hiding in the closet with her friend when she pops out and says "boo".

Kids also don't accidentally shoot themselves playing with guns, and people don't accidentally shoot their kids while cleaning their guns! Here are a bunch of other stories about kids getting killed by guns in ways that don't happen in countries with gun control.

It's pretty unlikely that a criminal will break in while you're home, awake, and near your gun. Even if that happens, you might not be able to unlock it, load it, and sneak out to where they are. Even if that happens, how likely are you to be able to aim and hit them without getting hurt yourself or someone else? And even if that happens, what if they're not actually a criminal and you just shot your own daughter? And even if it is a criminal, wouldn't it have been less scary and distressing to just call 911?

I've never heard of a case where an average person kept a gun around their home and it saved their life. Criminals are usually there to steal your things, not hurt you! You're the one hurting people when you keep a gun around. If you called 911, you could get them arrested, get your precious material possessions back (are those really, really so important to you that you're willing to risk losing innocent lives for them? Really?), and no one would get hurt.

DID YOU KNOW? States with high household gun ownership have more unintentional shooting deaths than states with low household gun ownership.

Considering all the accidents that happen because we let people keep guns laying around in their homes, is it really worth it? Really? Just to keep some guy from stealing your tv? Why?

You can't compare shooting someone while getting robbed and shooting someone in a bar fight.

Yeah, you can. You want guns, and you want them badly enough that you're willing to let stuff like that happen. So that you can protect some junk in your house.

 

[Butterfree]

I did, in response to Fluttershy. I admit that guns make killing easier than knives. I don't think anyone in their right mind could dispute that.

And yet you didn't respond to the actual conclusion this implies, namely that easy access to guns does result in people killing each other where they wouldn't have otherwise. You just took the obvious fact out of context and went "lol, nobody would dispute that" as if it were irrelevant to the argument.

 

[opaltiger]

No, it would just force people to invent/find other ways of killing people. It's just human nature.

I think there is an impassable difference in our world views here. You seem to think that if someone kills someone using a gun, that person would have killed them even if they didn't have a gun. I think that's completely ridiculous. It seems to me you've completely ignored Butterfree's main point - guns make it easy to kill people. Yes, there are always other ways of killing people. But most people won't use them. It's not "human nature" to find complicated ways of killing people. So, here's the question: do you genuinely believe that, if guns were banned (let's assume for the sake of argument gun control is incredibly good and no one has guns), the same number of people would be killed every year, only the cause of death would change?

No, I did not know that. Is there a point you're trying to make?

Yes, I'm trying to make you understand how much of a non-issue gun crime is in those countries.

 

[Crazy Linoone]

You can't compare shooting someone while getting robbed and shooting someone in a bar fight. One is justifiable, the other is not. But, since the guy in your example wasn't getting robbed himself that's a different story. Unless there were people's lives in danger in the house that was being robbed or something.

To me, it's simple: if someone violates my rights (be it property, by robbery; life, by threatening my life; or liberty, by kidnapping me), I have the right of forceful self-defense. See non-agression principle. "No man can have a right to begin to interrupt the happiness of another. . . .yet every man has a right to defend himself and his against violence, to recover what is taken by force from him, and even to make reprisals, by all the means that truth and prudence permit." And this is my main problem with strict gun control: you take away my right to self-defense, you take away my right to life.

Are you saying that you have the right to kill whoever threatens you?

Because that is just wrong on so many levels I don't even

EDIT: Okay, now that I'm rereading it, it sounds like a strawman. I'll rephrase my question: Are you implying that you have the right to shoot anyone who threatens you or your property? Because that is still wrong on very many levels.

And there's the fact that gun-control doesn't stop your right to self-defense. It just stops people from using guns. You can always go punch someone in the face.

 

[Phantom]

As a person who works regularly with the police and emergency personel, (being one) guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun is an inatimate object that can be controlled, people, however, cannot. Most of those accidental killings, cleaning guns etc, are STUPID people. A gun cannot magically leave its case, turn off it's safety and clean itself in a crowded room. There are protocols for gun safety and if not properly enforced stupid people do stupid things. Proper weapon maintenance and protocols should be enforced.

I am not, however, part of the NRA or like what they believe in. I believe that the only people who should have weapons are police and military. That's it. They shouldn't be open to the public. If they are then you should have to take a damn IQ test to get one. I also support the

As a police explorer I deal with weapons all the time, I even shoot competitively. I learned gun safety and learned guns aren't dangerous when dealt with properly. Only when you get an idiot handling it do things get dangerous. Or the line "I didn't know it was loaded" fuck that, you always, always treat a weapon as though it were loaded.

Also the bit about shooting kids while cleaning guns. That must take fucking talent. Last I checked you don't clean a loaded gun. Hell on some new models you can't. I mean if you're cleaning a revolver I can see that happening, but that's why you clean it with the cyl out. fuck people are stupid. When you clean a gun you take it apart. Hard to shoot a weapon that's in pieces.

I also want to say something. A lot of people who are against guns have never fired one, or have gone through any gun safety classes. So I must ask who here has actually even fired a weapon, or owns one?

 

[Adriane]

As a person who works regularly with the police and emergency personel, (being one) guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun is an inatimate object that can be controlled, people, however, cannot. Most of those accidental killings, cleaning guns etc, are STUPID people. A gun cannot magically leave its case, turn off it's safety and clean itself in a crowded room. There are protocols for gun safety and if not properly enforced stupid people do stupid things. Proper weapon maintenance and protocols should be enforced.

I am not, however, part of the NRA or like what they believe in. I believe that the only people who should have weapons are police and military. That's it. They shouldn't be open to the public. If they are then you should have to take a damn IQ test to get one. I also support the

As a police explorer I deal with weapons all the time, I even shoot competitively. I learned gun safety and learned guns aren't dangerous when dealt with properly. Only when you get an idiot handling it do things get dangerous. Or the line "I didn't know it was loaded" fuck that, you always, always treat a weapon as though it were loaded.

Also the bit about shooting kids while cleaning guns. That must take fucking talent. Last I checked you don't clean a loaded gun. Hell on some new models you can't. I mean if you're cleaning a revolver I can see that happening, but that's why you clean it with the cyl out. fuck people are stupid. When you clean a gun you take it apart. Hard to shoot a weapon that's in pieces.

I also want to say something. A lot of people who are against guns have never fired one, or have gone through any gun safety classes. So I must ask who here has actually even fired a weapon, or owns one?

Guns do kill people. That's what they're designed for. People designed the guns, people use the guns. They are a means to cause harm. You can't assume everybody is as meticulous about their firearms as you are. The US can't seem to get a grip on proper sex ed; I have little faith in widespread, proper firearm safety education. At any rate, the answer to gun problems is still not more guns. And to answer your question, I have used a rifle before, and this accusation is without merit. I am a bit miffed that people aren't grasping the part where less people armed = less gun crime, and this includes the police force.

 

[Phantom]

Guns don't do anything. They aren't alive. Yes they are designed to cause harm, but they are useless without someone behind the trigger. Does this make sense?

"Are you guilty of murder?"
"No! My gun did it!"

And I do understand where there are less guns, less crime, hence why I said guns shouldn't be open to the public, only law enforcement personel and military.

Sigh I wish I lived somewhere other than the US. People can't seem to get past the fact that someone is American when it comes to topics like this. It seriously offends me that people keep hitting on the US. You make it hard to have any love for one's country you know that? No country is perfect, please stop insulting other countries, people live there, I consider it rude and mean to be honest.

 

[Adriane]

Sigh I wish I lived somewhere other than the US. People can't seem to get past the fact that someone is American when it comes to topics like this. It seriously offends me that people keep hitting on the US. You make it hard to have any love for one's country you know that? No country is perfect, please stop insulting other countries, people live there, I consider it rude and mean to be honest.

1. People keep referring to the US, because it's the US that actually has this issue. Places that already have strict gun control are perfectly fine with it because it works.

2. I live in the US. It took me a few years in Germany to shed light on just how behind the US really is.

 

[Phantom]

^ I wasn't directly referring to you, sorry if you thought that.

And the US is not the only country with gun control issues. In fact there are many countries that have worse gun laws. How South Afica? Cuba? Iraq? How about Gulu where weapons can be found hidden in ant hills? There are countries with no gun laws at all, like Somalia. There are crimes involving weapons everywhere.

In fact the country with the most strict gun laws is Greece, who by the way has a hand in major drug trafficing and their violent crime tally has increase over the last ten years.

 

[ultraviolet]

How South Afica? Cuba? Iraq? How about Gulu where weapons can be found hidden in ant hills? There are countries with no gun laws at all, like Somalia. There are crimes involving weapons everywhere.

are you seriously comparing to Gun Laws in the US to those of third-world or wartorn countries? o.o

 

[Phantom]

No, dammit, it looks like that huh? Those places where gun laws are weak traffic to other areas illegally. Gunrunning.


Look in the end there is no way to stop gun violence. People will find ways to find guns, even in places like the UK that seem to brag about their strict gun laws. They aren't going away and stricter laws aren't going to stop it. Since someone brought up sex education earlier, it's like that, you aren't going to stop teens from having sex, the least you can do is educate them.

I have no idea what I am saying so I hope it makes sense.