America - Gun Control

[Tim Sheens]

Arguing a case for persons to be able to have a large cache of and/or carry firearms in first world countries is about the most ridiculous thing that I can think of. On par with those proposing a fence to keep their gardeners, housekeepers and cheap labourers out.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

It seems completely rational that we raise the quantity of available weapons to the public so that they may be stolen and sold on the cheap to gangbangers and psychopaths.

Theft of legal guns is a source of weapons for criminals, no doubt.

But that itself is not a reason to ban them. How about better storage measures or improved law enforcement as a first step, rather than banning something because someone might steal it.

Because we're not talking about a pack of cigarettes or a car. We're talking about implements that its express intent to would and/or kill.

Good luck even getting storage measures implemented over there.

 

[TCL]

OK dont have gun control. Ban the bullets, win win.

 

[cochise]

You are using one "madman" to disagree with those arguments, the discussion is about gun control, not one isolated incident.

So if the proposals don't stop this madman, then what is the point? Passing gun laws so people feel good about themselves, or passing gun laws that actually reduce numbers of people dying?

Bearing in mind we are dealing with the USA, where it is a legal right for a person to own a weapon. So saying 'lets ban guns' is not a realistic proposal.

And also bearing in mind the statistics show that there is no strict correlation between tougher gun control and gun/violent crime, then what specific proposals would work?

I am not some gun nut who thinks people should walk down the streets with bazookas strapped to their shoulders, i am genuinely interested in what people think would work, because i haven't heard what the so-called magic bullet is to solve this issue.

Just because it doesn't stop this one madman does not mean that it wouldn't stop others or make it much harder for criminals to get hold of guns. You pass laws that reduce the chance of these things happening, laws that limit the number of weapons in the market and also int the black market. Many illegal guns were once legal, if there are less legal guns then less of these legal guns would transfer into the black market and into the hands of criminals. The less guns on the black market than the higher the cost of those guns as there is a shift in supply and demand thus making hit harder for people to purchase those guns and maybe it limits the amount of guns they can purchase.

You close loopholes in background checks, that allow people to buy guns without even the proof of id, you make private sales more difficult, you allow a national gun registry that includes being able to store that information digitally so a owner of a gun used in a crime can be identified easily (there are laws in the us that prohibit the creation of a gun owner registry)

There is no magic bullet, but there are things that can be implemented to make these sorts of actions less likely. This is not about stopping this one Madman as you called him, this is about reducing the impact guns are having on a society.

 

[Guest]

The problem America has created for itself is that of creating a gun culture, which they have had from day dot. Control won't work for several reasons. One is that there are over 300 million guns in circulation, cataloging them all is impossible based on their registration records, or lack thereof. They don't have a licencing system like we do, where every gun sold is legally registered and recorded. Trying to back capture that amount of data…good luck. Secondly, the government has too many hurdles to clear, the NRA among one of them, in order to introduce any legislative change regarding gun control. As much as the US needs some sort of control, I cannot realistically see them doing anything about it. It would be like finding a vaccine to cure cancer.

 

[Nelson]

The problem America has created for itself is that of creating a gun culture, which they have had from day dot. Control won't work for several reasons. One is that there are over 300 million guns in circulation, cataloging them all is impossible based on their registration records, or lack thereof. They don't have a licencing system like we do, where every gun sold is legally registered and recorded. Trying to back capture that amount of data…good luck. Secondly, the government has too many hurdles to clear, the NRA among one of them, in order to introduce any legislative change regarding gun control. As much as the US needs some sort of control, I cannot realistically see them doing anything about it. It would be like finding a vaccine to cure cancer.

I think you're right on both fronts. The cultural problem is massive and it's not something that can be fixed quickly. If they can't change the culture they'll never get the political will to make any serious changes around gun laws and accessibility. It's also hard to see how the cultural change can even begin to happen. It would require a long term plan and long term commitment and politics just isn't a long term game these days. Any initiatives aimed at cultural change would be heavily railed against by the NRA and gun lobbyists generally. They're in a huge mess…Still, they need to start doing something about it.

 

[diedpretty]

As an Australian living in the US, the strangest thing I see with gun control is this ingrained fear that unless the population is armed, the government will run riot and oppress everyone.

They genuinely seem to fear their government. I explain in Australia, a government gets too big for its boots or pisses Australians off, we get a new government.

I will say though, Americans do have a real passion for hunting. And boy there is a lot to hunt here. On the other hand hunters dont seem to be generally the people behind this crazyness that erupts on a regular basis.

So go figure.

Hunters don't need semi automatic rifles

 

[magpiecol]

As an Australian living in the US, the strangest thing I see with gun control is this ingrained fear that unless the population is armed, the government will run riot and oppress everyone.

They genuinely seem to fear their government. I explain in Australia, a government gets too big for its boots or pisses Australians off, we get a new government.

I will say though, Americans do have a real passion for hunting. And boy there is a lot to hunt here. On the other hand hunters dont seem to be generally the people behind this crazyness that erupts on a regular basis.

So go figure.

Hunters don't need semi automatic rifles

How do you know??

 

[Tim Sheens]

As an Australian living in the US, the strangest thing I see with gun control is this ingrained fear that unless the population is armed, the government will run riot and oppress everyone.

They genuinely seem to fear their government. I explain in Australia, a government gets too big for its boots or pisses Australians off, we get a new government.

I will say though, Americans do have a real passion for hunting. And boy there is a lot to hunt here. On the other hand hunters dont seem to be generally the people behind this crazyness that erupts on a regular basis.

So go figure.

Hunters don't need semi automatic rifles

How do you know??

Well, the prey does not have a gun to shoot back for a start, so no need to be able to fire more rapidly.

 

[diedpretty]

Exactly. There will always be people with foil hats trying to contrive a conspiracy when it's unlikely one exists. I would think an investigation of this type would take weeks or months to complete and there's little chance the general public will ever be told the full process of the killings - nor is there any need to do so.
To be concluding there's some massive cover up based on the publicly available evidence would be naive, if not foolish.
**Let's just see it for what it was - a tragic mass murder by a crazy person who had access to weapons which normal citizens should never have been allowed to buy.**

Nothing wrong with asking questions. Especially when **_everyone has access to smart phones and a wealth of information at their disposal._** In a time when mainstream media is dying and citizen journalism is on the rise it's a good thing people ask questions.

… and even more mis-information.

without digressing too much from the topic i would disagree. I think we live in an age where we are smarter and healthier than we have ever been in human history. Information which isn't accurate generally speaking is far less likely to be ranked by search engines such as Yahoo; Baidu; Google et al , which in turn limits traffic and increases bounce rate. Wikipedia as an example corrects any editing done on its websites within a few hours.

I can totally understand apprehension and caution with questioning media when in the 1950s you had operation mocking bird which still affects modern media.

Thats a big call - definitely healthier but the jury is out on smarter - we no longer think for ourselves or make judgements based on what we believe is right and what we feel is right - these search engines and social media have massive influence on what people believe - media and govts control what information is released and unfortunately a lot of people fail to question the idiocy of what they are being told.

 

[diedpretty]

Listen to Abraham. He knows what he is talking about.

LOL - i'm laughing because i don't know if your serious or not.

 

[diedpretty]

As an Australian living in the US, the strangest thing I see with gun control is this ingrained fear that unless the population is armed, the government will run riot and oppress everyone.

They genuinely seem to fear their government. I explain in Australia, a government gets too big for its boots or pisses Australians off, we get a new government.

I will say though, Americans do have a real passion for hunting. And boy there is a lot to hunt here. On the other hand hunters dont seem to be generally the people behind this crazyness that erupts on a regular basis.

So go figure.

Hunters don't need semi automatic rifles

How do you know??

Ok you win - they do - must be bad hunters though.

 

[diedpretty]

Listen to Abraham. He knows what he is talking about.

LOL - i'm laughing because i don't know if your serious or not.

And now i realise you are serious.

 

[Abraham]

All that tells you is action needs to be national. DC is sandwiched between 3 states and an easy drive to several more. Gun reform is meaningless in isolation like that.

And 4 States border Mexico, another dozen or so border Canada, Florida is a dinghy ride away from Cuba…

What do you do about these instances? Enforce an international gun control program?

I am not trying to throw up road blocks just for the sake of it. I'm trying to illustrate that this is something beyond the ability of most governments to handle by passing domestic legislation.

And then what do you make of the statistics that show a decrease in gun crime while gun ownership went up in that same time period?

Come on now… International borders are a completely different proposition to state borders.

You mean overall or in DC? Any number of reasons, not least the incredibly high incarceration rates, more effective policing, the incredibly high starting point for homicide rates. I don't see how a direct correlation between increased gun ownership can be made.

Even in 2015 though the US rate was 4.88 per 100,000\. In Austria it was 0.51, Australia 0.98, Ireland 0.64... Rates may have dropped but by Western standards it's appalling.

The stats were nation wide i believe, but I'll put them aside, because i see it more as an interesting side point than a solid factor that can be relied upon in the absence of further information. When you look at the state by state information, it becomes less clear and is more dependent on things like the gang problem in each state, for example.

Back to the point i was making however… if you implement gun control, then it needs to be effective in achieving its aims. If the aim is to simply stop law abiding citizens from having guns, then that's easy, do what John Howard did.

But if the aim is to stop mass gun violence, then i am yet to hear of a gun control measure proposed that will achieve this. Even if you go to the extremes of ripping up the US Constitution and ban all guns, and secure the borders and stop guns being smuggled in, there are still over 350 million legal guns in circulation (more guns than people in the USA).

There is no easy fix, and the solutions proposed by politicians and commentators seem to be aimed at gaining twitter 'shares' and facebook 'likes', rather than looking at specific fixes.

 

[Abraham]

As an Australian living in the US, the strangest thing I see with gun control is this ingrained fear that unless the population is armed, the government will run riot and oppress everyone.

They genuinely seem to fear their government. I explain in Australia, a government gets too big for its boots or pisses Australians off, we get a new government.

I will say though, Americans do have a real passion for hunting. And boy there is a lot to hunt here. On the other hand hunters dont seem to be generally the people behind this crazyness that erupts on a regular basis.

So go figure.

Hunters don't need semi automatic rifles

How do you know??

He doesn't.

And there are many legitimate uses of semi-automatic rifles in hunting situations.

 

[Yossarian]

All that tells you is action needs to be national. DC is sandwiched between 3 states and an easy drive to several more. Gun reform is meaningless in isolation like that.

And 4 States border Mexico, another dozen or so border Canada, Florida is a dinghy ride away from Cuba…

What do you do about these instances? Enforce an international gun control program?

I am not trying to throw up road blocks just for the sake of it. I'm trying to illustrate that this is something beyond the ability of most governments to handle by passing domestic legislation.

And then what do you make of the statistics that show a decrease in gun crime while gun ownership went up in that same time period?

Come on now… International borders are a completely different proposition to state borders.

You mean overall or in DC? Any number of reasons, not least the incredibly high incarceration rates, more effective policing, the incredibly high starting point for homicide rates. I don't see how a direct correlation between increased gun ownership can be made.

Even in 2015 though the US rate was 4.88 per 100,000\. In Austria it was 0.51, Australia 0.98, Ireland 0.64... Rates may have dropped but by Western standards it's appalling.

The stats were nation wide i believe, but I'll put them aside, because i see it more as an interesting side point than a solid factor that can be relied upon in the absence of further information. When you look at the state by state information, it becomes less clear and is more dependent on things like the gang problem in each state, for example.

Back to the point i was making however… if you implement gun control, then it needs to be effective in achieving its aims. If the aim is to simply stop law abiding citizens from having guns, then that's easy, do what John Howard did.

But if the aim is to stop mass gun violence, then i am yet to hear of a gun control measure proposed that will achieve this. Even if you go to the extremes of ripping up the US Constitution and ban all guns, and secure the borders and stop guns being smuggled in, there are still over 350 million legal guns in circulation (more guns than people in the USA).

There is no easy fix, and the solutions proposed by politicians and commentators seem to be aimed at gaining twitter 'shares' and facebook 'likes', rather than looking at specific fixes.

But do these things need to be absolutes? Isn't action that reduces the possibility of mass shootings and homicide worthy in itself?

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

And 4 States border Mexico, another dozen or so border Canada, Florida is a dinghy ride away from Cuba…

What do you do about these instances? Enforce an international gun control program?

I am not trying to throw up road blocks just for the sake of it. I'm trying to illustrate that this is something beyond the ability of most governments to handle by passing domestic legislation.

And then what do you make of the statistics that show a decrease in gun crime while gun ownership went up in that same time period?

Come on now… International borders are a completely different proposition to state borders.

You mean overall or in DC? Any number of reasons, not least the incredibly high incarceration rates, more effective policing, the incredibly high starting point for homicide rates. I don't see how a direct correlation between increased gun ownership can be made.

Even in 2015 though the US rate was 4.88 per 100,000\. In Austria it was 0.51, Australia 0.98, Ireland 0.64... Rates may have dropped but by Western standards it's appalling.

The stats were nation wide i believe, but I'll put them aside, because i see it more as an interesting side point than a solid factor that can be relied upon in the absence of further information. When you look at the state by state information, it becomes less clear and is more dependent on things like the gang problem in each state, for example.

Back to the point i was making however… if you implement gun control, then it needs to be effective in achieving its aims. If the aim is to simply stop law abiding citizens from having guns, then that's easy, do what John Howard did.

But if the aim is to stop mass gun violence, then i am yet to hear of a gun control measure proposed that will achieve this. Even if you go to the extremes of ripping up the US Constitution and ban all guns, and secure the borders and stop guns being smuggled in, there are still over 350 million legal guns in circulation (more guns than people in the USA).

There is no easy fix, and the solutions proposed by politicians and commentators seem to be aimed at gaining twitter 'shares' and facebook 'likes', rather than looking at specific fixes.

But do these things need to be absolutes? Isn't action that reduces the possibility of mass shootings and homicide worthy in itself?

No, if anything they need to go the other way and allow the population to access weapons grade plutonium just in case someone breaks in to steal their TV.

 

[cochise]

And 4 States border Mexico, another dozen or so border Canada, Florida is a dinghy ride away from Cuba…

What do you do about these instances? Enforce an international gun control program?

I am not trying to throw up road blocks just for the sake of it. I'm trying to illustrate that this is something beyond the ability of most governments to handle by passing domestic legislation.

And then what do you make of the statistics that show a decrease in gun crime while gun ownership went up in that same time period?

Come on now… International borders are a completely different proposition to state borders.

You mean overall or in DC? Any number of reasons, not least the incredibly high incarceration rates, more effective policing, the incredibly high starting point for homicide rates. I don't see how a direct correlation between increased gun ownership can be made.

Even in 2015 though the US rate was 4.88 per 100,000\. In Austria it was 0.51, Australia 0.98, Ireland 0.64... Rates may have dropped but by Western standards it's appalling.

The stats were nation wide i believe, but I'll put them aside, because i see it more as an interesting side point than a solid factor that can be relied upon in the absence of further information. When you look at the state by state information, it becomes less clear and is more dependent on things like the gang problem in each state, for example.

Back to the point i was making however… if you implement gun control, then it needs to be effective in achieving its aims. If the aim is to simply stop law abiding citizens from having guns, then that's easy, do what John Howard did.

But if the aim is to stop mass gun violence, then i am yet to hear of a gun control measure proposed that will achieve this. Even if you go to the extremes of ripping up the US Constitution and ban all guns, and secure the borders and stop guns being smuggled in, there are still over 350 million legal guns in circulation (more guns than people in the USA).

There is no easy fix, and the solutions proposed by politicians and commentators seem to be aimed at gaining twitter 'shares' and facebook 'likes', rather than looking at specific fixes.

But do these things need to be absolutes? Isn't action that reduces the possibility of mass shootings and homicide worthy in itself?

100%, you bring in measures to limit the chances of these things happening, and there are things to reduce the amount of guns in the us, implement a buy back scheme for any firearms that become illegal under new laws being implemented, also extend that to weapons that are illegal currently.

I am not someone advocating for no guns, I grew up with a shooters license from the age of 12 and had used firearms before that age, my father was a professional shooter in the 70's and 80's and even as 5 year old kid my favourite activity with my father was a night of fox shooting. They are still amongst my favourite memories from my childhood. In saying that with the amount of deaths, specifically the deaths of children that occur in the United States due to guns I can not understand how any society can just accept that this is the price of their freedom, I do not care how ingrained it is in their culture, that is just plain messed up.

 

[Abraham]

But do these things need to be absolutes? Isn't action that reduces the possibility of mass shootings and homicide worthy in itself?

Of course.

But they have to actually do what you have described, within the applicable framework.

Safe Storage, limiting magazine capacities, in-depth background checks, so called gun-show loopholes … they wont actually stop someone from killing a whole bunch of people if they really want to. They more or less just give off the impression that gun ownership is being regulated, without tackling the specific problem of mass killings.

There are probably alot of other factors that make a person commit such acts that need to be looked at in conjunction with gun laws. Terrorism is an obvious one, but also the massive rates of prescription mind-altering drugs which i am sure would have a bearing on a persona's mental state prior to carrying out one of these attacks. The guns are the means by which they kill all the people, but what put them in such a position in the first place, that made them want to kill all those people?

Its not an easy question to answer.

 

[MG1962]

He doesn't.

And there are many legitimate uses of semi-automatic rifles in hunting situations.

To bad that wasn't what he said. There is a big difference between legitimate use and need.