Gun Control

[Deleted member 93956]

That's all fine and dandy but the only change of the course that being armed in the good old genocide/state purification/purge is that you'll maybe kill one or two bad guys before being turned into a cheese grater, optimally with slo mo and epic/tragic music playing at the same time, and ideally if that is supposed to drive the plot forward or motivate the main characters. Sorry, lost my train of thought. Ah yes, that you can do diddly dick. And today most likely even the most moustache twirling villain wouldn't do the good old and tested "dragging people to the street and shooting them in the face" instead of, say, just frame them as sub humans, cause "accidents" or just throw a bioweapon into the water supply, I don't even know.

Were the Japanese-American citiziens only responsible of their own security before the fact of being driven to their respective concentration camps, or am I missing something?

You seem to blissfully ignote them gun owners that weren't affected by that and didn't move a toe, despite knowing, hum. Let's get it straight, it's about protecting your OWN shit or about protecting your glorious nation from tyranny? Because those aren't the same, without even getting into what exactly defines "tyranny" besides "that one really good Obsidian made RPG released in 2016".

 

[Crni Vuk]

Why are you asking me things that you find for yourself easily?
If you want extreme examples, then take Iceland. They have as many guns per capita as France, Canada, Belgium, etc and virtually none of the gun crime. It clearly illustrates that you can have a fuckton of legal firearms ownership with virtually no gun crime.

This is very frustrating ... as it's either a language thing, or we have some kind of missunderstanding.

The most basic of examples, to illustrate what I am trying to say.

Let us imagine a village with 100 people, 15 of them are criminals. All 100 people have guns. Now I remove all guns. The logical conclussion? No guns used in any crime, accidents, or other viollent action. Simply having access to a weapon, increases the LIKELYHOOD of said weapon to be used in certain situtations, this can go from a burgular entering a home, to a suicide attempt, a quarel between couples etc. Situations where they would have used a knife or their fists or some other object instead of a gun.

Seriously, without any offense, that's not so difficult to grasp. I NEVER made the claim that more guns equal more crime! Just that LESS(!) guns means LESS guns used in viollent crimes! If you think this is not the case, pelase show me proof, where LESS guns have lead to MORE GUN VIOLLENCE. I am not asking for examples with MANY GUNS and LOW GUN CRIME. We have proof that this is possible - Switzerland.

Even if I take Iceland, if I would remove every single gun, how can anyone use a gun in any crime or viollence?

Fucking hell, in Srebrenica Dutch peacekeepers stood down and let the entire population be sorted out and get selectively massacred.

While they have been all armed by the way.

An armed population in Srebrenica wouldn't have stoped the genocide, the serbian Army would have simply declared a siege over the city and bombed it to kingdom come, as how they've done it many times when they encountered armed civilians. Only an equally equiped force can stop an army equiped with tanks, artillery and larger weapons. So unless a civilian population is at all times ready to wage a war, then I am not sure what a few hand guns and rifles would have done here. Probably even more harm than good, as the Serbian army would have simply leveled everything by a bombardement with the civilians traped inside it.

The question in the context of the USA, is if such "sensible" regulations can be enacted without damaging the other core values of the country which gun ownership was meant to protect.

Right vs. Privilege. It' a cultural thing, but those concepts can change. Besides, no one here said, bann all weapons so the 'right' to bear arms can be still kept. We're still only talking about sensible regulations and laws. Besides, I believe our German values are in a good spot, despite the gun regulations we have. If guns don't kill people, than it's the citizens that protect rights and values simply by believing in them, and not guns, you need people in the government and military that follow the constitution and are ready to stand for it.

If 90% of the population believe they need a dictator to govern over them with an iron fist, than the other 10% armed or not, can barely do anything about it. Values, have to be lived and understood, a gun can't do the thinking for you. Hitler was voted in to office, to say it that way a lot of Germans got simply sick of democracy.

Just out of couriosity as a Belgian, do you feel you're living inside a tyranical regime?

 

[Deleted member 93956]

As I can kind of foresee, there is the "even with a bare rock a man will try to bash each other's head" but consider this.

A rock hasn't been infamously called "so simple a child or an ape can use it" (for its purpose).

 

[Gizmojunk]

How many people here have completely read 1984? (... and how many times?)

I'm sure that Orwell really liked systematic denial and <just about everything else than the age of information has ensued>.

But is that a Yes or a No?

If you want extreme examples, then take Iceland. They have as many guns per capita as France, Canada, Belgium, etc and virtually none of the gun crime. It clearly illustrates that you can have a fuckton of legal firearms ownership with virtually no gun crime.

Temperature.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...am_sales_rise_homicides_rise_coincidence.html

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

 

[TerminallyChill]

I've been watching this thread go in circles for a few days since that kid shot up the school in Florida. I'll probably just get sucked into the vortex too now, but hey, what the hell.

We're all Fallout fans, right? This is a Fallout community after all. Let's put on our alternate timeline imagination caps for a second.

April 20th, 1999. Sociopath Eric Harris and his clinically depressed cohort Dylan Klebold storm Columbine High School armed with illegally modified and purchased firearms. They fail to blow up the building but manage to gun down thirteen people and wound twenty-four others before fatally shooting themselves. America is shocked. Gun debates run hot on internet forums. This is where our timeline diverges.

Let's suspend our disbelief for a second and pretend that in the immediate aftermath, the United States Government successfully outlaws all firearms. They somehow manage to round up every last one without starting a second civil war. Things seem to be going great.

Flash forward to December 14th, 2012. Suspected schizophrenic Adam Lanza, unable to obtain a gun, stabs his mother with a kitchen knife and slaughters 26 people in front of Sandy Hook Elementary school by running them down with her stolen car. America is shocked. Debates run hot on internet forums. The United States Government destroys all knives and automobiles as a preventative measure and now considers them contraband. The country is safe again.

Five years pass. On Valentine's Day 2018, known racist and political extremist Nikolas Cruz detonates an ammonium nitrate explosive at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, killing 17 and injuring 15 more. America is shocked. Debates run hot on internet forums. Fertilizer is made illegal. You can see where this is going...

My point is this. When you simplify something like a school shooting down to one cause, you don't solve the problem.

I'm not trying to suggest that gun regulation wouldn't change things. Is America a little too obsessed with firearms? Probably. Maybe gun regulations would make things worse. I have no idea. I'm not a politician nor do I claim to be one. I'm not necessarily pro or anti-gun. All I know is that objects alone don't cause people to be fucked up in the head. That's a totally different but undeniably related issue. The solution for the U.S. probably lies somewhere between those two debates.

 

[Walpknut]

Almost any South American, Middle American or African country tbh.
Not sure what's unexpected about that.

So countries in unstable states due to civil wars product of american historical meddling in their affairs? That's what you are comparing the US to, a country that hasn't experienced any civil warfare or direct rammification of war, yet has the highest death by gun violence rates among first world countries?

 

[Crni Vuk]

But they have ...

 

[Deleted member 93956]

My point is this. When you simplify something like a school shooting down to one cause, you don't solve the problem.

"No shit", as a wise man once said. That's one shitty explosive and one incredibly crowded street, however. The Barcelona and the New York carnival ones didn't even go over ten in the lethal victims. But hey that's what abstract alternate timelines are. (Btw that was more of a parallel reality as the exact same perpetrators on the exact same conditions except different weapon and modus operandi which logically should get a bigger or smaller count).

That and if those are the only cases of gun/car/fertilizer crimes that seems like a pretty good deal to me!

 

[TerminallyChill]

"No shit", as a wise man once said. That's one shitty explosive and one incredibly crowded street, however.

Just thought I'd inject America's poor grasp on mental health back into the conversation. Maybe get it out of this feedack loop.

Also the kids were all in line for the bus. And he was really bad at making bombs.

 

[MutantScalper]

Just out of couriosity as a Belgian, do you feel you're living inside a tyranical regime?

Yes, he's all oppressed and stuff sitting in horrible winter weather (+ 6 deg C) in a cafeteria drinking coffee and later some primo Belgian brew while stuffing his face with tyranical first class Belgian chocolate.

 

[Lanfear]

Not sure what you're going out of your way to prove, but nearly everything you mentioned are all things I face in Belgium as well?
Including getting a doctor to sign of on my physical & mental health every 5 years? Having to prove each year that I have not committed any felonies?

I'm trying to show that the situation in Israel is not in any way proof of the validity of allowing private citizens to easily own or freely carry guns, quite the contrary, they have stricter laws covering private gun ownership than most other developed countries despite the fact that the area is geographically much more volatile than them.

You're entirely misreading the premise. I was saying that even if we had some guarantee that all gun crime would disappear in 100 years time after enacting a full ban, there were still other things to consider than mere statistics.

I understand the premise, but it's an extreme one that isn't relevant to my own argument. I wouldn't argue for a complete and total ban of all firearms anymore than you would argue for complete and total deregulation of them, so illustrating the consequences of either situation is fruitless.

That's debatable. The statistics vary.
A gun remains a universal equalizer. It gives you a chance to resist where previously there was nearly none, especially if you're of frail build or outnumbered. In the US, several hundred fatal shootings per year are viewed as "justified".
Can I in good conscience argue for the removal of concealed carry permits that may some a woman from being raped or a man from being murdered simply because someone else chose to misuse a firearm? That's really murky territory.

The idea that gun proliferation provides victims of attack with an equaliser is in most cases a misconception. I spoke about this earlier in discussion with Gizmojunk, but I'll go over the basic premise again so you don't have to wade through the thread: if you have a gun on your person, and someone accosts you with a gun, you aren't on equal footing, you are at a sharp disadvantage. This is true regardless of what your assailant is armed with, but more so if they have a gun. An assailant almost always has both weapon in hand and the advantage of their victim (the notable exception would be situations in which they're forced to break into a property whilst their victim is aware of their presence, which is why most assailants will give up at this point anyway), and this advantage becomes more pronounced if the assailant is armed with a gun, because they can accost their target from farther away, thus giving them less of a chance to suspect anything might be amiss and to avoid being accosted.

Adding guns as a factor is generally of benefit to assailants much more than it is of benefit to their victims.

Can you argue that allowing people to easily acquire and freely carry firearms is unjustified if it enables one person to defend themselves from an attack whilst simultaneously resulting in a dozen others being unable to avoid an attack, or getting shot? Yes, you absolutely can. These are precisely the sorts of discussions that lawmakers have when gauging whether a law is in the overall interest of their citizens.

And it's also why we need a decent discussion about this rather than throwing around statistics.

Assuming statistics are accurate and illustrate a clear correlation, it can be useful to use them. More so than arguing solely from the gut and missing obvious imbalances in the costs and benefits of a law.

Sure, but you'll find that the vast majority of the pro-gun crowd has indeed thought of this and has accepted the cost.

Of course they have. But why should they get to decide that this cost is worth it on behalf of the actual victims?

If you factor out people who were already legally not allowed to own firearms, you get far far less. The vast majority of those are gangland shootings.

You can't just kick illegal firearm use under the rug, because it's part of the exact same problem. Where do you think most illegally owned firearms come from? They start out as legally owned firearms and get stolen and resold. A huge part of gun control law is an effort to reduce the number of guns in circulation in a country and minimise the risk of guns entering the illegal market.

 

[Walpknut]

"But they present an increased risk to the population"

I know, and I have accepted the cost because it doesn't affect me.

 

[BigGuyCIA]

But is that a Yes or a No?

Temperature.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...am_sales_rise_homicides_rise_coincidence.html

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

Summertime; murdertime.

A huge part of gun control law is an effort to reduce the number of guns in circulation in a country and minimise the risk of guns entering the illegal market.

Have we learned nothing from the disaster that is the "War on Drugs" ?

 

[TerminallyChill]

Have we learned nothing from the disaster that is the "War on Drugs" ?

I think this is an incredibly valid point when discussing the restriction of anything in the United States. Marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, heroin, and cocaine are all incredibly illegal substances where I live, yet I know about ten different people I could call right now and have any of it in my hands within hours.

Not to mention prostitution, underground gambling operations, animal fighting rings, illegal immigration, and a shitload of other seedy activities that still go on despite their legal status.

Banning things does not mean the problem goes away. On the same token, doing nothing also isn't helpful. What this country needs is creative solutions.

 

[Buxbaum666]

Yes, I'm totally going to take your random politically inspired news article over the fact that I know a teacher near the West Bank.

I totally forgot that random anecdotes are the only really reliable kind of evidence.

You'd be surprised how many teachers have concealed carry permits in Israel, they're quite easy to get. No, they generally don't stand around with a UZI in their hands, but that doesn't mean the guns aren't there.

"Guns aren't there" was never the argument. There's just no real evidence for your claim that Israeli schools are an example of "more guns will fix it".

 

[Deleted member 93956]

I'm not sure exactly how is rebuttable in any way the famous 2008 data of 12k gun related deaths in the US versus 11 on Japan. I've said not already, if this somehow is COMPLETELY inconsequential or worse in the United States, you can't say you don't have a problem.

Banning things does not mean the problem goes away.

Not treating them like toys and making people go through some more hoops to get them, though?

 

[Lanfear]

Have we learned nothing from the disaster that is the "War on Drugs" ?

Very different beast. You could theoretically defang the drug problem by introducing law to take as much profit as possible out of the illicit drug trade; that doesn't translate well to the illicit gun trade, as you obviously can't reach any similar compromise with people who wish to use guns for illegal purposes.

It is funny to imagine someone trying to secrete condom-wrapped rifle parts out of their ass, though.

 

[Hassknecht]

Banning something can only work if you can suppress a black market and, hopefully, demand.
Drugs and guns in the US are somewhat similar in that regard; you have high demand, and a large supply that fuels (or would fuel) a large black market that can't really be dried out.
Trying to ban more guns when they're so many in circulation already would be way too hard to pull off. Banning guns would first lead to a massive rise in sales before they'd become illegal, increasing the amount in circulation. Before banning you'd have to lower the demand, but the demand is too deeply ingrained in US culture. Similar to drugs, really, where it's exceedingly easy to get super strong painkillers prescribed for the lightest pains, so there's a strong demand for opiates and shit. It's so easy to get hooked on strong painkillers, and people are so used to that that it's going to be hard to turn around. Here's an interesting story about a US woman who underwent surgery in Germany and was shocked that they simply wouldn't give her vicodin or whatever.
So again, high demand, lots of supply, leads to large black market if it was banned.

Weirdly enough, since Trump's election the general feeling of "THEY'RE GONNA TAKE MUH GUNS FROM ME SO I'LL BUY A TON OF GUNS BEFORE THEY COME!!" went so low that Remington went bust.

 

[Lanfear]

Banning something can only work if you can suppress a black market and, hopefully, demand.
Drugs and guns in the US are somewhat similar in that regard; you have high demand, and a large supply that fuels (or would fuel) a large black market that can't really be dried out.
Trying to ban more guns when they're so many in circulation already would be way too hard to pull off. Banning guns would first lead to a massive rise in sales before they'd become illegal, increasing the amount in circulation. Before banning you'd have to lower the demand, but the demand is too deeply ingrained in US culture.

That's true. But gun culture in the US could be changed. It's changed elsewhere. The problem is that it would require a high amount of bipartisan effort from the government over an extended period of time to pull off, and bipartisanship in the US has quite possibly never been at a lower point than it is at present.

There are also other problems. They would need to have a very expensive buyback/amnesty to get a significant number of guns out of circulation. Then it would take many years of illegal guns being removed from circulation and not immediately replaced by other easily-acquired guns in order for long-term benefits to be seen. And so on. It would be a very long and costly job, the unfortunate consequence of having let the problem rage out of control for as long as it has.

 

[Hassknecht]

I don't see how US culture can change that much. Gun culture goes back to the very formation of the country, and no amount of massacres and violence will change that. Trying to change that would mean to dismantle the core of US culture, and that's not going to happen anytime soon.
To decrease the violence the US would have to massively decrease poverty, increase social security, and mental and physical healthcare. But in a country that is founded on personal independence and the rejection of government influence, I don't see that happening either. It doesn't help that due to this "We want government influence, but not really" implementations of government influence like Obamacare tend to suck balls.
You can't take away the guns, so you need to stop people from wanting to hurt others. You do that by creating jobs and opportunities for everyone, by making people not feel left behind or left out, and by helping those in need. But that more often than not requires more taxation and a working government apparatus, the first of which won't be liked by anyone, and the second one doesn't exist. And the libertarian way of privatisation of everything doesn't really work, either, as "taking care of people" and so on doesn't really translate well into "profit".