Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

[-Maximus-]

If we are going to control/ban something, how about abortion.

[Night Strike]

For everyone who wants to outlaw guns, do you just want every person to hopefully have a chance to call 911 for help and to hopefully have the time to wait for the police to come to take care of you in the event of an emergency?

A personal weapon is the first line of defense for self-protection, and a gun in the possession of a person trained to use it is the best personal weapon for defense. It has enough power to dissuade someone from using force in the first place, but it also has enough stopping power to end any attack that starts. You don't get that same effect from a knife, bat, pan, etc.

[crispybits]

Night Strike:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi ... index.html

Guns are not (for the most part) being used for legal self defence, at least not the way they are being used right now. So something has to change....

[Night Strike]

If we are going to control/ban something, how about abortion.

A couple thousand kids are killed every day by abortions.

[Night Strike]

Night Strike:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi ... index.html

Guns are not (for the most part) being used for legal self defence, at least not the way they are being used right now. So something has to change....

So the way to change is to take them away from everybody? No. Every person has the right to protect themselves, their family, and their property. No person should be forced to wait minutes for the police when they only have seconds to act.

[crispybits]

If we are going to control/ban something, how about abortion.

How about people dragging a conversation onto something completely irrelevant to the current topic? (presumably because they have no real arguments for their "I like guns, I want guns, f*ck what's good for society. derp" position? I stand to be corrected)

[Metsfanmax]

A personal weapon is the first line of defense for self-protection, and a gun in the possession of a person trained to use it is the best personal weapon for defense.

I agree with this. But what percentage of people who purchase firearms in the US are adequately trained in how to use one? Since in many states you don't need to take any form of class or receive any form of safety information, how can we be confident that with current firearm laws, the people who own guns are the people who are trained in how to use them and how to keep them properly locked up (so that, say, their children do not have access to them)?

[crispybits]

Night Strike:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi ... index.html

Guns are not (for the most part) being used for legal self defence, at least not the way they are being used right now. So something has to change....

So the way to change is to take them away from everybody? No. Every person has the right to protect themselves, their family, and their property. No person should be forced to wait minutes for the police when they only have seconds to act.

Wow either you read very fast or you didn't read at all.

Justifying keeping guns on self defence grounds, when (mostly legal) guns are not generally being used on legal self defence grounds and much more as weapons of intimidation and offence, including against family members, is not a sound argument.

[Ray Rider]

That link only goes to summary pages, but it provides the conclusions clearly enough, and I presume the Harvard School of Public Health is a credible enough organisation for you? (it's not like I'm quoting an article on MSNBC or something). It also has refrences to the main articles which with google you can normally read as PDFs, I haven't tried in these cases.

Actually, as I mentioned right at the beginning of this thread when Metsfan brought up that "study," you might consider it a to be credible if you don't mind them counting suicides as homicides and then combining states with high suicide rates with other states that have high gun ownership in order to achieve the desired conclusion.

Actually, those countries do have high gun-related death rates, but both of those countries have significantly lower numbers of guns per capita. The former statistic has rankings from many developing nations where violence is more common in general, but if you consider just developed nations there does seem to be a general trend that more guns results in more firearm related deaths (in case this wasn't obvious).

Now you're throwing in accidental deaths and suicides as well? Obviously more guns results in more firearm related deaths. What's your point? Even if you were to use the gun-related homicide rate (which at least is somewhat more reasonable) I personally wouldn't really care because if someone is going to kill me, I'd rather be killed with a gun than a knife; plus I'd rather have the freedom to defend myself with a gun rather than a knife. What I do care about is the overall homicide rate.

It's definitely not valid to compare only two countries, but if you include a large number of countries and there's a correlation, then that is something to take note of.

You're still missing out on the big picture; you see correlation and automatically assume causation without taking into consideration any other factors involved. That's some very limited thinking. Personally I believe that the US is an anomaly with a high homicide rate stemming largely from their culture which has contributed to why, for example, the New York homicide rate has been 5 times higher than that of London for 200 years.

Guns should be illegal...it is quite clear that there are TOO many people that have mental instabilities in the United States.

Massacres at schools are not limited to the U.S. Canada, the U.K., Finland, Brazil and Germany have had similar tragedies, with similar numbers of dead. Mentally unstable people, obviously, I agree. This is not a problem or a tragedy limited to the US.

The right to bear arms is meant for the military and police forces...NOT THE CIVILIAN POPULACE!

You could not be more in error. Are you perhaps suggesting here that the possession of firearms SHOULD BE limited to these groups mentioned? Maybe that's what you meant.

Except your massarces occur way, way too often.

Australia also had a similar massacre in 1996, since then we adopted much stricter gun regulations. Not a single mass shooting since.

Too often? Columbine right? Then those Amish kids. ... What since? Were there more?

Are you kidding?

You've had shootings at universities, at schools, the man who shot the crowd including Gabrielle Giffords.

I see you're very good at pushing these events out of your memory.
EDIT:
April 1999 - two teenage schoolboys shot and killed 12 schoolmates and a teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, before killing themselves.

July 1999 - a stock exchange trader in Atlanta, Georgia, killed 12 people including his wife and two children before taking his own life.

September 1999 - a gunman opened fire at a prayer service in Fort Worth, Texas, killing six people before committing suicide.

...

So you're comparing a country of 311 million to a country 22 million? Obviously the country with the higher population will have a higher total number of killings--that's common sense--but it doesn't prove anything. At least compare stats per capita if you're going to compare countries at all, for crying out loud!

Anyways, I have 6 more finals which I should be studying for...enjoy your discussion, but at least try to be reasonable if you want to convince someone!

[Night Strike]

A personal weapon is the first line of defense for self-protection, and a gun in the possession of a person trained to use it is the best personal weapon for defense.

I agree with this. But what percentage of people who purchase firearms in the US are adequately trained in how to use one? Since in many states you don't need to take any form of class or receive any form of safety information, how can we be confident that with current firearm laws, the people who own guns are the people who are trained in how to use them and how to keep them properly locked up (so that, say, their children do not have access to them)?

Because the people who value their own families will do the right thing. People have a right to self-protection and to own guns, so society should be focused on making sure every person knows what responsibilities come with those rights. Society should stop trying to infringe on the rights of others at every single turn.

[Juan_Bottom]

OK, so lets discuss what we would do.

1) It's mostly handguns used in crime, and you don't need one to protect yourself or to hunt with. Ban all hand guns except for protection of government employees like cops and soldiers.

2) Nobody needs an assault rifle except to kill a crapload of people really fast. Ban assault/military weapons.

3) Criminals buy their guns at gunshows. You don't need a background check at a gunshow. Gun manufacturer's know this, but most of their sales come from these shows, so they don't do anything to stop it. So they are knowingly indirectly selling guns to criminals and criminal organizations. So we need to do one or all of these three:

• a) ban gun shows
  b) require 7 day waiting periods and background checks for every purchase
  c) allow victims of gun violence to sue gun manufactures who knowingly indirectly sell to criminals.

[Metsfanmax]

It's definitely not valid to compare only two countries, but if you include a large number of countries and there's a correlation, then that is something to take note of.

You're still missing out on the big picture; you see correlation and automatically assume causation without taking into consideration any other factors involved. That's some very limited thinking.

I say that a correlation is something to take note of, and you jump to "he assumes causation because of correlation."

Wow.

[crispybits]

That link only goes to summary pages, but it provides the conclusions clearly enough, and I presume the Harvard School of Public Health is a credible enough organisation for you? (it's not like I'm quoting an article on MSNBC or something). It also has refrences to the main articles which with google you can normally read as PDFs, I haven't tried in these cases.

Actually, as I mentioned right at the beginning of this thread when Metsfan brought up that "study," you might consider it a to be credible if you don't mind them counting suicides as homicides and then combining states with high suicide rates with other states that have high gun ownership in order to achieve the desired conclusion.

I hope you read your study materials more closely than you follow links

The study I linked to was nothing to do with murder or suicide rates or anything of the sort, it was a study into reported self-defence incidents, with analysis by judges about which would constitute legal self defence, and statistics from ERs and prisons about injuries to felons, that concluded that the vast majority of gun use cannot be defined as legal self defence and is offensive or intimidatory in nature.

[Metsfanmax]

Because the people who value their own families will do the right thing. People have a right to self-protection and to own guns, so society should be focused on making sure every person knows what responsibilities come with those rights. Society should stop trying to infringe on the rights of others at every single turn.

Well, for whatever reason, this person's mother did not do the right thing (i.e. storing her guns in a gun locker). Obviously no one can be sure how this would have played out if the son could not have accessed his mother's guns; but can it be a good idea, in general, to not have gun laws that restrict gun sales to those who have adequate training and who keep their guns in a safe? If everyone did this anyway, you're right that we would not need a law. But it doesn't seem that they are as careful as you hope that they are.

[Juan_Bottom]

Gunman Opens Fire In Hospital, Wounding Three (PHOTOS)

[CreepersWiener]

The only reason I can think of to keep a firearm around is because there are people like Phatscotty and Hapsmo out there defending the tools of mass murder. Obviously, they want to use those tools, and that's horrifying.

Do not own firearm, but yes...agreed!

[MegaProphet]

I think stricter gun control laws should be put into place. I do not know if they would prevent these tragedies, but I also do not know why a member of the general public would possibly need an assault rifle. I think the loophole that allows people to be sold guns online or at a gun show without a background check needs to be closed because minors, criminals, and people with known psychiatric problems should not be sold guns. I think these are reasonable restrictions.

I do not think the solution is arming teachers. How much would it cost to train them? Where is this money coming from? Can they be trusted with guns? Both to keep them away from minors and to not misuse them?

After reading this thread I've come to agree with Woodruff that the solution is to change the way mental illness is looked at in this country. However I think that may be more difficult to accomplish. Banning guns is being touted as the solution by many because it seems like an easy fix.

Actually, giving teachers with a concealed carry permit the right to carry in school is not a bad idea. Administrators and local law could select individuals from a pool of volunteers already possessing a concealed carry permit, then law enforcement can run them through a short training/orientation program, which I am willing to bet the cops would provide at no charge. As the teachers have already obtained their permit and own their own weapon, no cost there either. This process should go a long way to alleviating your trust issues. As for keeping them away from students, there are so many secure conceal carry rigs available this really isn't an issue. Again, we are talking about a person who has been vetted by his superiors and local law.
Now, before ya'll pantywaist gun-haters start your whinin', we aren't talking teachers/school employees playing Wyatt Earp. Obviously, the lunatic with weapon in hand has the advantage over the cc in a surprise confrontation. However, in situations where there is some slight warning, such as the sound of gunfire and screams, the cc can get his weapon at the ready, surprising the lunatic. Will innocents still die? Unfortunately, sometimes yes. But the carnage can be greatly lessened by one armed person the lunatic doesn't know about.

This does seem reasonable and doable. I'm still uncomfortable with the idea of more guns in schools as I believe many would be. However I would not oppose an initiative like this. It could be a part of a comprehensive plan to prevent shootings in schools and other gun related tragedies. A plan including closing loopholes that allow people to buy guns without a background check, teaching gun safety to gun owners (including keeping guns away from minors and those with psychiatric illnesses), allowing trained and vetted teachers to carry their guns at school, making psychiatric treatment more accessible, and changing the way mental illness is viewed would likely be the most successful.

[crispybits]

I'm curious

Other than "because the second amendment says we can" is there any reason why normal, honest people need ready access to lethal weapons?

The defence vs government argument fails (or at least nobody has challenged it here to show me why it doesn't)

The defence vs criminals argument fails (or at least nobody has challenged it here to show me why it doesn't)

What is there left? And if there's nothing is "because we can" a good enough reason?

[Woodruff]

Lets make it really clear.

The argument is NOT that criminals will obey laws.

But the argument is for more gun laws.... We are aware murderers do not follow these laws. That's why we are perplexed as to what more laws is supposed to accomplish, at the expense of the real solution that will actually save lives: more guns.

"More guns" is no more a viable solution than "ban guns" is. It's a ludicrous proposition on your part, frankly.

The real question should be "How do we PREVENT these shootings".

I've given you the answer. You seem thoroughly terrified of discussing it, however.

[Woodruff]

Crispy, do you think culture/lack of values has anything to do with it?

How does lack of values affect lack of sanity?

[Woodruff]

Sorry to say but the day we give up our guns is the day we become servants of the state. We have the right to own guns to protect ourselves from the government.

We do have that right, I agree. But to be honest, that's sort of an irrelevant reason, these days. Either a majority of the military will follow the government (rendering the fight against the government essentially finished) or a majority of the military will side with the rebels (rendering the need for personal weapons moot).

OK, I get it now. You've decided, for you and everyone else, that guns are moot as long as you don't have any principles worth defending and you can just side with whichever way the wind blows. It makes sense, coward.

The only thing that you seem to "get" is that you're either unwilling or unable to discuss the issue rationally, and so you believe that making shit up out of whole cloth is the best way for you to further your agenda. Pretty sad perspective on your part, frankly.

[2dimes]

Crispy, do you think culture/lack of values has anything to do with it?

How does lack of values affect lack of sanity?

It prevents me from shooting up the place instead of posting on the Internet.

[Metsfanmax]

Crispy, do you think culture/lack of values has anything to do with it?

How does lack of values affect lack of sanity?

People with autism are sane.

[2dimes]

I kind of worded that wrong. Values are the "it" I was referring to.

[Woodruff]

If we are going to control/ban something, how about abortion.

How is that relevant?