Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
O hai im KAMIL

Gun Control in the US

Recommended Posts

In light of recent events I think it's a viable time to bring this topic to the forefront once again. In case you didn't know, America had another school shooting, which is tragic and begs the question of could this be prevented?

 

I feel like America is long overdue for serious gun reforms, fudge your second amendment guns are a man-made object, they shouldn't be considered a human right. A common argument against this is that "if someone had a gun they would've stopped the shooter before he could do anything" - well there were students on campus who were carrying guns with them and yet none of them acted and the shooter was taken down by police in the end, so much for that argument. America has a much higher gun-death rate per capita than any other developed nation for a reason.

 

Also yall need to fix your mental healthcare system (and your healthcare system in general), though it's questionable if it would stop things like this in the first place as opposed to banning guns.

 

So bash away!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best case for 2nd Amendment to stay as it is that I've seen is the town/county ( no evidence & can't remember the name but it definitely has been on news/documentarys) that not only allowed but FORCED everyone to own and carry a gun at all times. The crime rates there were minimal compared & mostly misdemeanor stuff.

Free access without guaranteeing "an equal playing field" is obviously not working, even the gun laws as stand in Australia are not a perfect cure but unless they could destroy every single firearm (including Government controlled ones) and absolutely prevent more becoming available nothing will prevent some deaths every year. At least our laws limit the damage.

 

Will edit later if i find further details of the (missing) evidence above.

EDIT:The key town that came up on a basic search was Kennesaw, Georgia, Head of household unless physicallly or mentally disabled must possess & carry since 1982.

Edited by Bwauder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the shootings in the US are from handguns. There's no way America is going to ban handguns anytime soon. Whether you understand it or not is irrelevant; guns are too big in US culture to be banned. And you need a crazy percentage of people to support repeal of a constitutional amendment for it to happen, so that second amendment is going to be around for awhile.

 

Then there's mass shootings, which are different. They are less than 1% of handgun fatalities in the US, so not the biggest issue but still worth looking at. Usually committed with assault weapons. There's massive NRA lobbying in Congress among both parties preventing reform from happening. For instance, after the Sandy Hook shooting where 20 children died assault rifle reform still did not pass Congress.

 

A lot of people point at mental health in the US being the big issue, but my question to you guys is what do you do to improve it? You can get psychological counseling fairly cheap. Most of these killers were not anxious to seek out psychiatrists though. I think the issue is guns, which leads us back to the above.

 

Right now there's not much we can do considering the above. It appears Americans prefer to leave in a more dangerous environment with the freedom of guns than a possibly safer environment without that freedom.

Edited by Sobend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Americans have a very different cultural mindset with guns compared to everyone else, so nothing's going to change. Nobody really understands it if you don't live here. I'm not pro-gun or anti-gun, but I don't mind it. Obviously we could do away with assault rifles (possible but not likely) but even that wouldn't solve too many issues. As Sobend said they don't account for a huge percentage of the gun deaths and you could still do a school shooting with a handgun anyway.

 

It's possible to lower gun-related crimes without restricting gun rights, we're just going to have to do that for now. Personally as an American I'm disappointed about how much crime there is in this country compared to others with similar wealth.

 

I feel like America is long overdue for serious gun reforms, fudge your second amendment guns are a man-made object, they shouldn't be considered a human right.

Whether guns should be a human right or not is irrelevant tbh because they are right now, and that's not going to change. You need a significant majority of states to change the Constitution, and right now I doubt a single state would repeal it. The second amendment is here to stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even under moderate and liberal courts, SCOTUS has been on the side of gun owners basically since the first cases involving the Second Amendment have come to light.

 

Frankly, gun control advocates are wasting their time campaigning in Washington. If you want gun control to exist, using Constitutional boundaries, hit state capitols. Push for limited licensing regulations and more stringent checks on potential owners on a state-by-state basis. It's not a huge step forward but if you're going to take an all-or-nothing position, you won't get anything done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't take much of an opinion on this, except to state that if someone wants to kill someone else, they will make it happen. Even if guns were outlawed and illegal completely nationwide, there would still be mass shootings and gun-related injuries/deaths. In that instance, the only people having guns would be the police, and the criminals.

 

Premeditated activities that include gun-shooting are carried out by criminals. These are people who wouldn't care whether the gun they have is legal or not, because they will find a way to get them anyway.

 

On a similar note, I really wish the media would stop stating the names of the people who cause these mass-shootings. In this most recent case, and I'm sure many of you saw elsewhere on the internet, the shooter himself mentioned that the best path for infamy is to go on a shooting rampage. Then CNN goes ahead and shouts his name out which is exactly what he wanted.On top of this, many news corporations not only headline that person's name, they use bar graphs in conjunction with other shootings to show this slaughter vs. others. That, to me, seems like a HUGE freaking mistake because it's like broadcasting a leaderboard. "Who can get the most kills?" It's horrific.

 

Here's a link to CNN being hypocritical of the wishes of those who would rather not spread around this man's name.

https://vid.me/J4k0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
America has a much higher gun-death rate per capita than any other developed nation for a reason.

And can you show gun ownership is the reason? Burden of proof is on the anti-gun lobby here.

Edited by thepope1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
America has a much higher gun-death rate per capita than any other developed nation for a reason.

And can you show gun ownership is the reason? Burden of proof is on the anti-gun lobby here.

I have to admit that it's pretty interesting, the first inclination of anti-gun liberals I encounter is to say “well nine of the top ten states for gun violence are also top ten gun ownership states!!”

 

But here's the fun fact, the outlier there, Nevada, is a bottom-ten gun ownership state. So there's got to be something more important than gun ownership. I dug in.

 

Nevada is one of the poorest states in the Union. It has one of the lowest high school graduation rates (among reporting states). It has high violent crime rates. It has high recidivism rates (probably driven by repeat offenders of prostitution bans in Vegas, but w/e).

 

It seems that poor education, poor earning opportunities, and being rural (or as I like to call most rural people, useless :laughroll: ) (it's a joke) are the biggest drivers of gun violence. That last one said, gun violence is also heavily driven by city life.

 

It's also worth pointing that in a time when gun ownership rates are exploding, gun violence continues a pretty sharp decrease. It's not even like gun violence rates are just kind of going down slowly. Gun violence is down hugely since the 1980s. We've known, though, for a long time, that as American GDP growth improves, crime goes down. So the real answer seems to be to get that GDP up :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America has a much higher gun-death rate per capita than any other developed nation for a reason.

 

It seems that poor education, poor earning opportunities, and being rural (or as I like to call most rural people, useless :laughroll: ) (it's a joke) are the biggest drivers of gun violence. That last one said, gun violence is also heavily driven by city life.

I'd be interested to see why living rural leads to higher gun violence.

 

That actually brings up a similar point I've heard before (might have been on Sal's, might have been somewhere else, it was a while ago). A lot of people call for anti-gun laws, but live completely different lifestyles from the people who perhaps benefit from having a gun the most. When anti-gun persons argue that the only people who need a gun are the cops, they are saying this belief with the idea that a cop will respond to a situation within 1-3 minutes in an urban/suburban area. Those who live in a rural area don't have that convenience though. If there's someone on their property threatening them, they can't just call the police and have them show up within a few minutes - it could take quite a while depending on how secluded they are. I would imagine having a gun gives those people some solace, and it would be unfortunate to see guns banned in these areas that benefit from their use.

Edited by Chaoss
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't take much of an opinion on this, except to state that if someone wants to kill someone else, they will make it happen. Even if guns were outlawed and illegal completely nationwide, there would still be mass shootings and gun-related injuries/deaths.

So unless we can

, there's no point in gun laws? -.-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't take much of an opinion on this, except to state that if someone wants to kill someone else, they will make it happen. Even if guns were outlawed and illegal completely nationwide, there would still be mass shootings and gun-related injuries/deaths.

So unless we can

, there's no point in gun laws? -.-

I didn't say that at all. Please don't put words into my mouth.

 

What I am saying is that, gun laws or not, reform or not, people will still find a way to circumvent the laws and do what they wanted to do in the first place. That's literally it, that's all I'm saying in that quote. I am pretty indifferent to most of this national argument, my comment was simply to state that when they do reform, they better not expect much to change, but those committing mass atrocities will more likely than not be unaffected.

 

I'm all for a possible reformation, as long as it's a productive and positive change. The problem with the lobby currently is that in many situations there are people unfamiliar with guns spreading untruthful information. I see it all over the internet and media, politicians using trigger words like "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazines" when in fact it's simply a common one pull, one bullet piece of weaponry. This means that if we want to see change, something drastically original needs to be thought of. I don't have an idea, maybe someone smarter than me can think of one. But limiting magazine sizes, restricting hardware, etc, isn't going to change anything at all. There are some great ideas in Obama's gun control proposals, but we as a nation still need to be cognizant of that fact that people are going to kill each other outside the confines of the law until the end of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that it would be better if there were hardly any guns outside of police hands and the occasional hunter or sports shooter is obvious

but I really don't see how you can get there coming from the current state of gun ownership

 

the country is flooded with guns and people are gun crazy and even think you absolutely need one to protect your family

considering that you can't even convince people that vaccines are good for them I don't see how you can make them believe that having no guns is better for them

 

even if half of the current gun owners would bring their guns in for destruction it wouldn't change much because there are still too many going around

 

you know that I really don't know anyone who owns a (functional) gun, airsoft and antiques by the ton but real guns nope...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't take much of an opinion on this, except to state that if someone wants to kill someone else, they will make it happen. Even if guns were outlawed and illegal completely nationwide, there would still be mass shootings and gun-related injuries/deaths.

So unless we can

, there's no point in gun laws? -.-

I didn't say that at all. Please don't put words into my mouth.

 

What I am saying is that, gun laws or not, reform or not, people will still find a way to circumvent the laws and do what they wanted to do in the first place. That's literally it, that's all I'm saying in that quote. I am pretty indifferent to most of this national argument, my comment was simply to state that when they do reform, they better not expect much to change, but those committing mass atrocities will more likely than not be unaffected.

 

I'm all for a possible reformation, as long as it's a productive and positive change. The problem with the lobby currently is that in many situations there are people unfamiliar with guns spreading untruthful information. I see it all over the internet and media, politicians using trigger words like "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazines" when in fact it's simply a common one pull, one bullet piece of weaponry. This means that if we want to see change, something drastically original needs to be thought of. I don't have an idea, maybe someone smarter than me can think of one. But limiting magazine sizes, restricting hardware, etc, isn't going to change anything at all. There are some great ideas in Obama's gun control proposals, but we as a nation still need to be cognizant of that fact that people are going to kill each other outside the confines of the law until the end of time.

I'm sorry; I should have elaborated to make my overall point coherent.

 

My statement is based on the proposition that while imposing gun restrictions will not eliminate mass murders etc., it will conclusively reduce them. I'm afraid I don't have an extensive knowledge to go to the effort to back this up beyond merely stating the correlation between gun restrictions and lowering of murder rates in other developed nations, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't take much of an opinion on this, except to state that if someone wants to kill someone else, they will make it happen. Even if guns were outlawed and illegal completely nationwide, there would still be mass shootings and gun-related injuries/deaths.

So unless we can

, there's no point in gun laws? -.-

I didn't say that at all. Please don't put words into my mouth.

 

What I am saying is that, gun laws or not, reform or not, people will still find a way to circumvent the laws and do what they wanted to do in the first place. That's literally it, that's all I'm saying in that quote. I am pretty indifferent to most of this national argument, my comment was simply to state that when they do reform, they better not expect much to change, but those committing mass atrocities will more likely than not be unaffected.

 

I'm all for a possible reformation, as long as it's a productive and positive change. The problem with the lobby currently is that in many situations there are people unfamiliar with guns spreading untruthful information. I see it all over the internet and media, politicians using trigger words like "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazines" when in fact it's simply a common one pull, one bullet piece of weaponry. This means that if we want to see change, something drastically original needs to be thought of. I don't have an idea, maybe someone smarter than me can think of one. But limiting magazine sizes, restricting hardware, etc, isn't going to change anything at all. There are some great ideas in Obama's gun control proposals, but we as a nation still need to be cognizant of that fact that people are going to kill each other outside the confines of the law until the end of time.

I'm sorry; I should have elaborated to make my overall point coherent.

 

My statement is based on the proposition that while imposing gun restrictions will not eliminate mass murders etc., it will conclusively reduce them. I'm afraid I don't have an extensive knowledge to go to the effort to back this up beyond merely stating the correlation between gun restrictions and lowering of murder rates in other developed nations, though.

I don't know the figures on that, so you may very well be right. Still, the reforms on the guns many lobbyists are calling for are usually for guns that make up less than 2% of all murders committed by a weapon. I'm not saying this number is so small we should stand by and not do anything about it, I'm trying to force perspective and show that we are putting a lot of time into fixing a problem that is often over exaggerated by the media.

 

I remember hearing a while back that out of all murders reported in the US a majority are committed by the use of a knife or by human force. No one is calling for knife reforms, or fist reforms. So, yes, I concede that gun reform would probably be a good thing, but I'll reiterate that it has to be productive and positive and lead to an actual change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
considering that you can't even convince people that vaccines are good for them I don't see how you can make them believe that having no guns is better for them

Just because you choose to equate gun control to vaccination doesn't mean the two are equal.

 

Other than "people shouldn't own dangerous things", there isn't an argument for gun control that stands up to scrutiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember hearing a while back that out of all murders reported in the US a majority are committed by the use of a knife or by human force.

 

Not true at all - guns cause 70% of homicides in the US.

 

And can you show gun ownership is the reason? Burden of proof is on the anti-gun lobby here.

 

Well I mean, if you look at any developed nation that has strict gun control, they have a much lower homicide rate by guns. Not exactly sure why that is, but could be something to do with their gun laws?

 

Sure you could argue that a criminal will still find a way to get a gun, but if you have a higher barrier of entry to obtaining one (e.g. purchasing a gun on the black market in Aus is insanely expensive) it'll make it harder for the more crazy people to have one. I mean shizzle, why have speeding laws if people are going to speed regardless? Because you'll never be able to completely remove something, even countries with strict gun laws have people dying from guns. Does that mean you should just give up, say it's impossible to completely fix it, and do absolutely nothing? That's pretty pathetic.

Edited by O hai im KAMIL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel the American political system approaches tragedies such as this the same way every time: create discussion, say changes must be made, then let it die out and move on. Frankly, that's what the approach seems to be with a lot of controversial issues. People don't want to make change, they want to keep their votes. I understand the 2nd amendment won't change (even though it was never intended to arm citizens with assault rifles that they could tote up and down main street), and I also accept that American society has become too gun-loving to ever take serious action with gun laws. Sad truth, but one I accept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Existing laws can do so much in reducing gun violence if they're just properly enforced and tweaked. Psychiatric evaluations for example. should have increased depth and scope.

 

Closing the gunshow loopholes and requiring background checks in private and online transactions is one way. Most of the mass shootings we see in the U.S are committed by individuals who would had histories of mental instability and thus should not have had the right to but a gun.

 

The Virginia Tech shooter was deemed mentally ill by a judge yet passed two background checks. Surely something could have been done there certain laws were amended. Federal and state authorities should have access to mental health records and records of erratic behaviour when doing background checks.

 

I've taken a very centrist stance here as opposed to an outright call would an assault weapons bad (which would be ideal). Surely we can agree that there should be more thorough and comprehensive psychiatric examinations when it comes to gun purchases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone who wants to use a gun to commit a crime isn't going to be concerned with the legality of owning a gun. 

You cannot uninvent the concept of a gun.

Currently it seems unlikely that there would be a need for guns to be used against a US tyrannical govt or whatever, but what if it happens in the future? It certainly has happened in the past and is currently happening in other countries. A lot of people don't seem to grasp how serious things can potentially be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On one hand, a gun is an object with an intended purpose. In this case, the purpose is (objectively) to kill. The same can be said for bows and swords, for example, although the latter two lack in 'efficiency' when it comes to the damage they can do within a set period of time.

Indisputably, guns are more lethal than swords or bows, but not illegal in the U.S. for identical reasons (these reasons being hobbyism and sportsmanship). I'm personally not citing the second amendment because, in theory, the government is far too well-armed in both the aspects of physical weaponry and intelligence to be overthrown by loosely-organised local militias - although I completely understand the ethical value in preserving the individual in the face of tyranny and the wish to keep weaponry, even if it is just as a quasi-political statement.

Ethically, the issue is complicated. Let's approach it from a utilitarian perspective, i.e. 'trying to achieve the maximum good for the maximum number of people'.

I've been digging through some statistics and came across this, featured in the BBC (2016 article, data from 2012)

_85876097_homicides_guns_624_v3.png

This shows me two things:

a.) Homicides in the U.S. are incredibly high in comparison to the other three countries.
b.) The majority of these homicides are committed using guns.

This, however, hasn't fully convinced me that making guns illegal won't cause at least a significant part of these murders to be committed using other tools. Besides that, simply comparing the non-gun homicides already shows a unusually large discrepancy when comparing the figures. Does anyone else have any data to support or deny this? How do we know the United States has a 'gun problem' and not a 'homicide problem'? I personally feel very conflicted on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.