Gun Control

[Deleted member 93956]

This thread:

 

[Crni Vuk]

The shooting has had absolutely no effect on my stance whatsoever, because my stance has been formed with the knowledge that such a thing might happen. And I have found that the cost of these rights is outweighed by the benefits it brings to individuals.

And those would be?

We have pretty strict gun laws in Germany. I don't feel like inside a surveilance state or that I am missing on a lot of benefits personaly.

Quite the oposite, I feel very comfortably with the thought that only very few civilians actually own guns, and for the most part it's one of 3 reasons.

1. Sport.
2. Hunting.
3. Collecting historical weapons.

The statistic of encountering a criminal with a gun in Germany is almost abysmal. The thing is, if you take a nation like the US they have a much higher use of fire arms in criminal activites compared to Germany, simply because there are more guns in circulation. Even if we factor in the difference in population. Crimes, incidents/accidents (family disputes, suicides etc.) involving guns, often end up with more and serious injuries and lethalities compared to natiions that have very few guns in civilian hands, in the US toddlers kill more people accidently with a gun than terrorists, and there is very little talk about that. And yet, many people are not even ready to agree with better safety measures, training and age restrictions. For gods sake, you have to be 16 to drive a car, 21 to drink alcohol, but giving a gun to a 5-6 year old is perfectly normal for some ...

And I find it worrisome that you are afraid of inanimate objects.
It's not like violence & crime will suddenly disappear if we ban all firearms.

Yes, certain objects can be more terrfying than others. But that's beside the point, I was once threatened with a gun by a family member.
Thing is, that I find the GUN CULTURE worry some, of course if every state was like Switzerland, I would have absolutely zero problem with weapons, even fully automatic weapons.

Sure, there are things I would want to change if I lived there.
But overall, I think that the US mental health culture, the self-medication culture, the education system, the entitlement culture and so on are far more troubling than its gun culture.

Probably and that also plays a huge role, but we're talking about the guns and the gun culture in this topic after all. Many americans owning weapons could not even agree to the things you mentioned right now.

 

[TheGM]

Proof? They're buying guns all over the place in US and not much is put into checking this.

Is this pretending to be retarded or something.

 

[Risewild]

I have never felt the need to conceal carry myself, but I do not have the audacity to claim that I can decide for other people that they do not need it.

Only 1/3 of Americans own a gun, by that logic the other 2/3 are all victims of crimes all the time because they don't own guns? Makes no sense, if Americans need guns to protect themselves, how come the vast majority do not own guns and are not plagued by rampant crime?

What does more detailed research have to say? Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck said that plenty of research has found rates of carry permit holding "have no net effect on crime rates, including violent crime rates, one way or the other."

However, Kleck said that the research he has seen doesn’t differentiate between open carry and concealed carrying.

Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, pointed us to a 2010 study that looked at whether right-to-carry laws affected crime rates. The conclusion: they didn’t.

"The best available evidence suggests that right to carry concealed laws are associated with increases in aggravated assaults with guns, but have no measurable effect on population rates of murder and robbery," Webster said.

The V.P.C. also found that in 2010 “there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm” reported to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Compare that with the number of criminal gun homicides in the same year: 8,275. (That’s not counting gun suicides or unintentional shootings.) Or compare it with the number of Americans killed by guns since Newtown: 3,458.

As the V.P.C. paper states, “guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.”

Here is the first of three articles with good sources to plenty of studies that show that owning guns does not prevent or reduce crime and self defense cases involving guns are not that many. In fact increasing the number of guns increases assault and other crimes involving guns, who could have seen that coming.
http://www.armedwithreason.com/less-guns-less-crime-debunking-the-self-defense-myth/

 

[SuAside]

Yet you can decide that they need it.

Taking something away from someone is profoundly different than allowing them to make a choice for themselves.

Jehova's Witnesses can decide that they do not want blood transfusions during medical procedures, but they don't get to decide to withhold the same for other people.

The freedom of not being stopped by carrying suspicious metal objects sounds like a fair exchange.

You are welcome to your opinion, but I'd hope your convictions are solid, because once we go there, it's very unlikely that we will ever be able to return to what we consider normal today.

Once rights have been eroded, it is very hard to get them back. Which is logical after all, since you just gave away your power.

And you as a Belgian are all about the "personal freedom"-levels of Americans, while siding with the more red neck/hick - crowd.

Funny, for all your moral superiority, you just resort to namecalling. You realize that there are far more people who support this than just "rednecks" and "hicks", right?

Proof? They're buying guns all over the place in US and not much is put into checking this.

Whenever you purchase a gun from a gun store in the USA, you are forced to take a background check:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System

Under sections 922(g)[16] and (n)[17] of the GCA certain persons are prohibited from:

Shipping or transporting any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce;
Receiving any firearm or ammunition that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

A prohibited person is one who:

Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is a fugitive from justice;
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
Has been convicted in any court of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", a defined term in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)

I'm not saying this is a perfect system, but your erroneous claims that anyone can just buy a gun from a gunstore is patently false.

It's not monitored in any way.

In the same way that speeding is "not monitored". The cops have to catch you in the act first.

And those would be?

Well, only the ability to actually attempt to adequately defend yourself is more than sufficient to outweigh the cost for me. You empower the individual to take charge of his own protection if he so wishes, instead of leaving him defenseless.

We have pretty strict gun laws in Germany. I don't feel like inside a surveilance state or that I am missing on a lot of benefits personaly.

I never said that strict gun laws lead to the surveillance state. It's just that someone brought up monitoring & metal detectors as a solution to ending criminal violence.

Crimes, incidents/accidents (family disputes, suicides etc.) involving guns, often end up with more and serious injuries and lethalities compared to natiions that have very few guns in civilian hands, in the US toddlers kill more people accidently with a gun than terrorists, and there is very little talk about that. And yet, many people are not even ready to agree with better safety measures, training and age restrictions. For gods sake, you have to be 16 to drive a car, 21 to drink alcohol, but giving a gun to a 5-6 year old is perfectly normal for some ...

I don't dispute that.
Some people are idiots. But luckily the vast majority aren't.

Thing is, that I find the GUN CULTURE worry some, of course if every state was like Switzerland, I would have absolutely zero problem with weapons, even fully automatic weapons.

Switzerland also has a gun culture, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Probably and that also plays a huge role, but we're talking about the guns and the gun culture in this topic after all. Many americans owning weapons could not even agree to the things you mentioned right now.

Neither of us are American though. So it's not up to us to decide for them anyway.

Only 1/3 of Americans own a gun, by that logic the other 2/3 are all victims of crimes all the time because they don't own guns? Makes no sense, if Americans need guns to protect themselves, how come the vast majority do not own guns and are not plagued by rampant crime?

I have only said that an armed person has a better chance at defending himself from violence or crime. It's not a magical shield that will always protect you, but it empowers you to at least attempt to protect yourself regardless of your physical strength or stature. Firearms are the most effective tool for self-defense which we have.

Most concealed carry permit holders in the USA will never need to use their weapon in defense. And that's great. In an ideal world, no one ever will. But it's better to have it & not need it, than to need it & not have it.

Here is the first of three articles with good sources to plenty of studies that show that owning guns does not prevent or reduce crime and self defense cases involving guns are not that many. In fact increasing the number of guns increases assault and other crimes involving guns, who could have seen that coming.

And yet, the very same statistics which you flaunt show that armed law-abiding citizens are not more dangerous to society?
Your article literally states that violent crime levels remain the same, but at the same time you've empowered people to actually defend themselves from it?

I'd also like to re-iterate that the vast majority of "murders with firearms" in these statistics are actually suicides. Suicides which do not appear in violent crime statistics if they are carried out with pills, by hanging, by vehicle, etc. So you could easily expound that guns do actually lower violent crime, since your statistics say the level with & without remains the same. Yet the statistics "with" include suicides, which I would say is not actually violent crime. So the net total would be lower violent crime with than without if you take that into account.

Funny what you can do with statistics...

 

[MutantScalper]

Is this pretending to be retarded or something.

Is this pretending to be a legit point or something.

Taking something away from someone is profoundly different than allowing them to make a choice for themselves.

Jehova's Witnesses can decide that they do not want blood transfusions during medical procedures, but they don't get to decide to withhold the same for other people.

So it would be ok to commit crimes because to ban crimes would be to "take something away from someone".

Funny, for all your moral superiority, you just resort to namecalling. You realize that there are far more people who support this than just "rednecks" and "hicks", right?

No I just think it's strange for a Belgian dude to be 'up in arms' for US rednecks and hicks etc. to have a bunch of guns. And yes, it's not just rednecks and hicks who are flooded with guns in US, also poor black/latino/etc. folks, the guns are subsequently used to commit crimes in those communities with a death toll in the tens of thousands every year.

Whenever you purchase a gun from a gun store in the USA, you are forced to take a background check:

...which doesn't work. You can't take humans out of the equation but you can take or at least reduce the number of guns in the equation. Maybe time to try that in US.

In the same way that speeding is "not monitored". The cops have to catch you in the act first.

A lot more is put into monitoring traffic than in monitoring guns in US, many many times more.

It's just that someone brought up monitoring & metal detectors as a solution to ending criminal violence.

Ok so if you go to a, say, night club and there's a metal detector at the door you go all freaky-screamy-AlexJones: "Omgz you tyrants and hillarybots stahp infringing on muh FREEDUMBS!!11"

I'd also like to re-iterate that the vast majority of "murders with firearms" in these statistics are actually suicides. Suicides which do not appear in violent crime statistics if they are carried out with pills, by hanging, by vehicle, etc. So you could easily expound that guns do actually lower violent crime, since your statistics say the level with & without remains the same. Yet the statistics "with" include suicides, which I would say is not actually violent crime. So the net total would be lower violent crime with than without if you take that into account.

Firearms are a high mortality suicide method compared to other methods such as pills, hanging, etc. Meaning with a firearm almost always (90%+) times the first attempt is lethal. The failed cases are often very physically damaging also. So in the ideal world of SuAside (?), suicide attempts would be really lethal and all folks with mental problems wouldn't receive any help from society but instead they could buy a cheap gun and then either off themselves or off a bunch of country music fans & themselves.

 

[Hassknecht]

Is this pretending to be retarded or something.

After a few arguments with that guy, I'm honestly not sure anymore. Sometimes he forms somewhat coherent arguments, but then he posts something so outrageously wrong and idiotic that you're wondering wether he has a real mental handicap or if his leftwing extremism just functions like one.

 

[Risewild]

And yet, the very same statistics which you flaunt show that armed law-abiding citizens are not more dangerous to society?
Your article literally states that violent crime levels remain the same, but at the same time you've empowered people to actually defend themselves from it?

Please read my entire post:

"The best available evidence suggests that right to carry concealed laws are associated with increases in aggravated assaults with guns, but have no measurable effect on population rates of murder and robbery," Webster said.

Having more people with guns increase more assaults using guns, so people having guns does make them a danger because they use those guns for serious assaults.
So shooting people is not a bad thing as long as they don't die?

I'd also like to re-iterate that the vast majority of "murders with firearms" in these statistics are actually suicides.

You need to read properly what I quoted:

The V.P.C. also found that in 2010 “there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm” reported to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Compare that with the number of criminal gun homicides in the same year: 8,275. (That’s not counting gun suicides or unintentional shootings.) Or compare it with the number of Americans killed by guns since Newtown: 3,458.

As the V.P.C. paper states, “guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.”

In one year 230 people died by being shot in a justifiable way, yet 8,275 not justifiable deaths happened in that year. Are you saying it is OK to use guns for personal protection when they are only used for the intended purpose of protection 1/36 of the times people die because of guns?

The truth is that even law abiding citizens with legaly purchased guns can lose it for whatever reason (we all get really angry sometimes) and because they have a gun nearby they can just shoot someone, this previous law-abiding citizen now became a criminal but it's ok because now he is a criminal and criminals get their weapons by unlawful means so the gun laws wouldn't apply anymore.
"As the V.P.C. paper states, “guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes." But we need them to kill criminals and stop crimes!

 

[MutantScalper]

After a few arguments with that guy, I'm honestly not sure anymore. Sometimes he forms somewhat coherent arguments, but then he posts something so outrageously wrong and idiotic that you're wondering wether he has a real mental handicap or if his leftwing extremism just functions like one.

I was gonna hit the report-button to report silly ad hominem but then I remembered "oh wait, this guy (or tranny?) is supposed to be an admin".

 

[Hassknecht]

I was gonna hit the report-button to report silly ad hominem but then I remembered "oh wait, this guy (or tranny?) is supposed to be an admin".

This wasn't even supposed to be an ad hominem, I'm honestly surprised at the levels of, well, mental oddness you're sometimes capable of. Sometimes you seem like a nice enough guy, but then you post something so outlandish and batshit crazy that I don't know wether to call Poe's Law or chalk it up to actual mental difficulties. I apologize for being mean to you, though.

I'm a guy, though. Prefered pronouns he/him/his.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

You are welcome to your opinion, but I'd hope your convictions are solid, because once we go there, it's very unlikely that we will ever be able to return to what we consider normal today.

Once rights have been eroded, it is very hard to get them back. Which is logical after all, since you just gave away your power.

You also shouldn't be subjected to checking in airports or having to go through the frame when going out of stores, it's YOUR freedom!

Funny what you can do with statistics...

Innit?

 

[MutantScalper]

This wasn't even supposed to be an ad hominem, I'm honestly surprised at the levels of, well, mental oddness you're sometimes capable of. Sometimes you seem like a nice enough guy, but then you post something so outlandish and batshit crazy that I don't know wether to call Poe's Law or chalk it up to actual mental difficulties. I apologize for being mean to you, though.

I'm a guy, though. Prefered pronouns he/him/his.

I'll use "it" from now on.

 

[Hassknecht]

I'll use "it" from now on.

That's a hatecrime, and you know it. You monster.

 

[MutantScalper]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...an-after-three-killed-in-office-park-shooting

More of the same.

Here you can follow these cases.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/mass-shooting

 

[Crni Vuk]

Switzerland also has a gun culture, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

You missed the parts where I said (for the third time now ...), if the US had Switzerlands gun culture, it would be a vast improvement. I mean how many gun massacres do they have? Certainly nothing on the scale of the US, even if we put the relation of size in mind.

It works for the Swiss because they are a rich nation with good social stability, relatively few poor people and they actually educate their gun owners, by taking the milita part seriously.

 

[TheGM]

Is this pretending to be a legit point or something.

It was actually a question.

Seems like too many people suggest what America should have for gun laws without even knowing what the gun laws are. In my state not only do you need a license to own a firearm, but ammunition as well.

 

[MutantScalper]

You missed the parts where I said (for the third time now ...), if the US had Switzerlands gun culture, it would be a vast improvement. I mean how many gun massacres do they have? Certainly nothing on the scale of the US, even if we put the relation of size in mind.

It works for the Swiss because they are a rich nation with good social stability, relatively few poor people and they actually educate their gun owners, by taking the milita part seriously.

Switzerland has a system where they store their military reservist weapons at home. They have had big mass shootings committed with said weapons. They usually just store the weapons at home and ammo is at the range where they practice, but I guess you can get ammo if you want. They have higher gun mortality figures than Austria, a neighbouring similar country. They recently voted whether to end the "store weapons at home - reservist" - system, they narrowly decided to continue with the present system.

TheGM,

seems to me that US has an overall warped culture about guns. This is reflected into their laws and also the levels with which the said laws are actually enacted. The only real important figure to look at in the case of US are gun mortalities and other gun harm, wounded etc., or which there is much higher number than the gun deaths, which are in the tens of thousands per year.

 

[SuAside]

So it would be ok to commit crimes because to ban crimes would be to "take something away from someone".

At face value, your comment is utterly retarded, but I think you inadvertently made a good point.

Unjust laws should not be followed. If some extreme rightwing idiot successfully bans racemixing, then I feel we should indeed be committing "crime" to combat such unjust laws.

No I just think it's strange for a Belgian dude to be 'up in arms' for US rednecks and hicks etc. to have a bunch of guns. And yes, it's not just rednecks and hicks who are flooded with guns in US, also poor black/latino/etc. folks, the guns are subsequently used to commit crimes in those communities with a death toll in the tens of thousands every year.

So you're a bigot.

...which doesn't work. You can't take humans out of the equation but you can take or at least reduce the number of guns in the equation. Maybe time to try that in US.

Of course you can take the humans out of the equation. There's final solutions for that. But that's harder if the people you want to exterminate are armed, of course.

Ok so if you go to a, say, night club and there's a metal detector at the door you go all freaky-screamy-AlexJones: "Omgz you tyrants and hillarybots stahp infringing on muh FREEDUMBS!!11"

A night club is a private institution, so they have the right to protect their establishment this way. If you do not agree, you vote with your wallet & go elsewhere.
Besides, most states which allow concealed carry do not allow carry in a night club in the first place.

Firearms are a high mortality suicide method compared to other methods such as pills, hanging, etc. Meaning with a firearm almost always (90%+) times the first attempt is lethal. The failed cases are often very physically damaging also. So in the ideal world of SuAside (?), suicide attempts would be really lethal and all folks with mental problems wouldn't receive any help from society but instead they could buy a cheap gun and then either off themselves or off a bunch of country music fans & themselves.

In my perfect world, everyone who attempts suicide is 100% effective, yes. But in my perfect world, there's also psychological support & follow-up in the hopes of never allowing it to get that far.

Having more people with guns increase more assaults using guns, so people having guns does make them a danger because they use those guns for serious assaults.
So shooting people is not a bad thing as long as they don't die?

Your reading comprehension is failing.

It says "increases in aggravated assaults with guns". It does NOT say "increase aggravated assaults". So yes, because guns are more available more criminals will use them. But the total number of aggravated assaults does not rise. These are crimes which already would happen, with or without guns.

In one year 230 people died by being shot in a justifiable way, yet 8,275 not justifiable deaths happened in that year. Are you saying it is OK to use guns for personal protection when they are only used for the intended purpose of protection 1/36 of the times people die because of guns?

Yes. I don't see why millions should be disarmed just because a few thousand abuse guns.

I hope you realize that for every antigun website like the one you're quoting, there's a pro-gun website that takes the opposite stance with different statistics, right?

The truth is that even law abiding citizens with legaly purchased guns can lose it for whatever reason (we all get really angry sometimes) and because they have a gun nearby they can just shoot someone,...

If you think you can get angry enough to shoot someone just because you have a gun nearby, you need mental help.

...this previous law-abiding citizen now became a criminal but it's ok because now he is a criminal and criminals get their weapons by unlawful means so the gun laws wouldn't apply anymore.

There are statistics for that. Lawfully acquired guns used in crime vs unlawfully acquired guns use in crime.

"As the V.P.C. paper states, “guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes." But we need them to kill criminals and stop crimes!

And yet they may have saved the lives of hundreds of people per year? People that may not have had a chance if they hadn't been armed?

It works for the Swiss because they are a rich nation with good social stability, relatively few poor people and they actually educate their gun owners, by taking the milita part seriously.

Which I said first. So we are in agreement on that point at least. It's just that I don't think it's the militia part that's the important part. Swiss youth is involved in shooting way before their military service even starts.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

 

[MutantScalper]

Ok so to recap SuAside's views.

- laws are ok, except when SuAside and NRA-Cletus thinks they are
- SuAside ignores the racism of the NRA and it's history of racism and racist roots
- SuAside seems to think genocide is ok
- SuAside would like to get rid of metal detectors at US schools and other public institutions
- SuAside is in favour of suicide

Ok then, let me just get my coat...