Gun control questions - by an outsider...

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mikepegg44 wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

goingtoverona wrote:

so what are we thinking here guys? there is no gun control law that could have prevented this so gun prohibition is the obvious answer? if there were no guns, this wouldn't have happened.

You are correct stating the obvious: if there were no guns, this wouldn't have happened.

But nobody, at any time, has said "there should be no guns." Many have said, with great frequency, that there needs to be limits on the types of guns and who can access them. They say this because they acknowledge there is a problem and they wish to take steps to address the problem... just like other 'developed' countries have.

Every country has its share of social inequity, poverty, mental illness, depression, unemployment... but not every country has an abundance of readily available firearms for people to get their hands on at a moment's notice and express their rage in homicidal fashion. The US is quite unique with this regard and, as a result, you boast an exceptionally high murder rate via the gun, as well as the periodic mass shooting that leaves the whole planet shaking their heads (and a few middle east countries cheering).

It's alarming that some of your 19 year olds feel the desire to have semi-automatic handguns. Our 19 year olds are wondering how they can get better phones. If the option was there though, I guarantee that we would begin to develop the same problems that you guys realize. It just makes sense of course.

There is too much hyperbole from blowhards on either side of the debate to ever have a legitimate discussion about the actual problems that increase our penchant for violence here in the states. Unfortunately those problems will always take the back seat to "from my cold dead hands" crowd or Liberal congressmen that want to score points by faking concern but doing nothing.
The reason I say that is that assault weapons ban expired years ago, and the violent crime rate has dropped just about every year since. It isn't the tools that are the problem, it is something else, something that I don't know if anyone will every put a finger on it when we focus on the tools. Real solutions aren't easily realized, but nonsense scores easy political points...which do you think will get done by our "leaders?"

I'm unclear if you have referred to my posting as 'nonsense' or not. I'll respond thinking this isn't the case seeing as you are normally well-versed and usually a little less hostile.

I don't think that the highlighted portion of my post qualifies as 'hyperbole'. I think it's a simple and irrefutable fact that guns are too accessible in the US and we have seen the results of this fact: kids are consistently stumbling across them and killing their brothers or sisters by accident... and angry people are resorting to using them in conflict before they have a chance to cool down.

The statistics- generated by very reputable sources- have been presented numerous times in this forum detailing the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths.

There are underlying problems of course... but that doesn't mean one shouldn't 'control the bleed' while attempting to heal.

Godfather.

as I have been saying "it's a people issue not a gun issue" this is not the first time a "box cutter" has been used in a crime/murder, people...sick and twisted people who want to kill will do it any way possible...no gun no problem used a knife,box cutter,baseball bat etc.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/justice/m ... ?hpt=ju_c2


Godfather.

mikepegg44

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I'm unclear if you have referred to my posting as 'nonsense' or not. I'll respond thinking this isn't the case seeing as you are normally well-versed and usually a little less hostile.

I don't think that the highlighted portion of my post qualifies as 'hyperbole'. I think it's a simple and irrefutable fact that guns are too accessible in the US and we have seen the results of this fact: kids are consistently stumbling across them and killing their brothers or sisters by accident... and angry people are resorting to using them in conflict before they have a chance to cool down.

The statistics- generated by very reputable sources- have been presented numerous times in this forum detailing the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths.

There are underlying problems of course... but that doesn't mean one shouldn't 'control the bleed' while attempting to heal.

My original post, and the reason that part was highlighted was that to say we can get guns at a moment's notice in a homicidal rage is hyperbole. But then removed that part and decided, unsuccessfully obviously, to make it a wider point about arguments on both sides containing too much hyperbole, like the thought you expressed appeared to be to me.

I wasn't calling you or your argument non-sense, I respect it and the way most of it is presented but think that trying to control the tools will, as a matter of simple impossibility at this point, be a waste of time and energy. States and cities with the tightest gun control measures experience the same problems, some to a greater extent, than the states and cities without those laws. I don't say that to mean that gun "control" laws are useless, I just think we all too often focus on the tool and not the person.

According to some the tools have grown more deadly since the assault weapons ban ended, yet we aren't seeing the same results in actual violent crime rates, we are seeing the opposite, at least according to the UCR (uniform crime report for those who didn't take way too many sociology classes like myself). in the last 20 years the violent crime rate has dropped. That doesn't mean anything to someone who was a victim of a violent crime at the hands of someone holding a gun, but statistics are everywhere and point to all sorts of correlations...but as we know and sickeningly hear all the time, correlation does not equal causation.

Gun deaths aren't all murders, I think most are suicides, and quite frankly, as someone who was in fact suicidal at one point in their lives (even tried once and got extremely lucky as a younger man, or idiot as I now look at how ridiculous it was) those people won't be stopped by simply not having a gun, they can and only will be stopped by themselves or friends and family regardless of the tools available.

My 'nonsense'' comment was directed at politicians in the US, not you, I am truly sorry if that wasn't clear. Nonsense like implying that some how a government list of all gun owners will be created for the purpose of disarmament if we have a universal background check system in place to score easy political points, or by invoking the 2nd amendment to the constitution while ignoring many of its other, less convenient parts...or by grand standing about the need to make stricter changes and then dropping it after an election...

I am not for banning of tools at all, but I think there is some room for more strictly enforced measures on who can purchase weapons and how they can be purchased is needed. But I do think those measures need to pass constitutional review. I love my guns, had to bring one out the other night but that is a completely different story and it was terrifying, but would give them up in a heart beat if someone else could guarantee my family's safety...but no one can do that.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mikepegg44 wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I'm unclear if you have referred to my posting as 'nonsense' or not. I'll respond thinking this isn't the case seeing as you are normally well-versed and usually a little less hostile.

I don't think that the highlighted portion of my post qualifies as 'hyperbole'. I think it's a simple and irrefutable fact that guns are too accessible in the US and we have seen the results of this fact: kids are consistently stumbling across them and killing their brothers or sisters by accident... and angry people are resorting to using them in conflict before they have a chance to cool down.

The statistics- generated by very reputable sources- have been presented numerous times in this forum detailing the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths.

There are underlying problems of course... but that doesn't mean one shouldn't 'control the bleed' while attempting to heal.

My original post, and the reason that part was highlighted was that to say we can get guns at a moment's notice in a homicidal rage is hyperbole. But then removed that part and decided, unsuccessfully obviously, to make it a wider point about arguments on both sides containing too much hyperbole, like the thought you expressed appeared to be to me.

I wasn't calling you or your argument non-sense, I respect it and the way most of it is presented but think that trying to control the tools will, as a matter of simple impossibility at this point, be a waste of time and energy. States and cities with the tightest gun control measures experience the same problems, some to a greater extent, than the states and cities without those laws. I don't say that to mean that gun "control" laws are useless, I just think we all too often focus on the tool and not the person.

According to some the tools have grown more deadly since the assault weapons ban ended, yet we aren't seeing the same results in actual violent crime rates, we are seeing the opposite, at least according to the UCR (uniform crime report for those who didn't take way too many sociology classes like myself). in the last 20 years the violent crime rate has dropped. That doesn't mean anything to someone who was a victim of a violent crime at the hands of someone holding a gun, but statistics are everywhere and point to all sorts of correlations...but as we know and sickeningly hear all the time, correlation does not equal causation.

Gun deaths aren't all murders, I think most are suicides, and quite frankly, as someone who was in fact suicidal at one point in their lives (even tried once and got extremely lucky as a younger man, or idiot as I now look at how ridiculous it was) those people won't be stopped by simply not having a gun, they can and only will be stopped by themselves or friends and family regardless of the tools available.

My 'nonsense'' comment was directed at politicians in the US, not you, I am truly sorry if that wasn't clear. Nonsense like implying that some how a government list of all gun owners will be created for the purpose of disarmament if we have a universal background check system in place to score easy political points, or by invoking the 2nd amendment to the constitution while ignoring many of its other, less convenient parts...or by grand standing about the need to make stricter changes and then dropping it after an election...

I am not for banning of tools at all, but I think there is some room for more strictly enforced measures on who can purchase weapons and how they can be purchased is needed. But I do think those measures need to pass constitutional review. I love my guns, had to bring one out the other night but that is a completely different story and it was terrifying, but would give them up in a heart beat if someone else could guarantee my family's safety...but no one can do that.

No problems. As I said in my preface, it was a little unclear, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt based on how credible you typically are on this forum.

I wish to speak to two aspects of your post- not that the rest isn't worthy of reflecting on!

Firstly, any specific areas will not experience the success they seek by enacting gun control measures when neighbouring areas provide access. This must make sense to those presenting the 'Chicago' argument. To this point I would also add that success can only be measured in the long term: immediate success is impossible given the current proliferation and abundance of weapons already within the public. Employing strategies such as a 'buy back program' would assist with expediting the desired results. Restricting ammunition sales to those with registered guns and eliminating ammunition sales for illegal weapons would help as well.

Secondly, the lack of opportunity for impoverished kids growing into adults is one of the underlying causal factors that I think your country needs to address. Just as Mexican youth can join a cartel and enjoy a lifestyle that is simply beyond them, despair or a lack of hope drives a significant portion of your youth sector to a life in crime. Some might argue that a kid should feel good about a life behind a fast food counter, but think how such a prospect might be a source of frustration and drive one to become angry. It's really too late for the adults who have become a by-product of your country's inequitable system, but I feel your country has a chance to 'curb the bleeding' (slowly at first and incrementally faster) by providing more to those that need it. I know your country typically hates anything that looks socialist, but my pea brain sees no other way.

Pingfah

I completely agree. America is not a compassionate country, social mobility is very poor and many people are completely disenfranchised from society by poverty, further the political discourse is dominated by demonisation of those less well off.

Poverty is the main driving factor behind violence in all societies, gun control laws will help somewhat, but moreso with accidental shootings, young kids getting hold of weapons etc than with violent crime. America's big problem is a social one.