USA and Guns; Yay or Nay?

[[Desolate Divine]]

The last few years have shown terrible acts, such as the Sandy Hook Massacre, the shooting at the Batman Premiere. Some people believe that if the USA had more restrictions on Guns available to the public, that it could have been avoided. Others believe that if people nearby had guns that it would have been stopped before too many people were killed.

Where do you stand on the spectrum? Do you think the US government should restrict guns to the general public? Or do you think that gun control will not stop these shootings?

[Rival Max]

This issue has caused many people to fight here. Restricting guns to the public isnt necessarily the problem. Where I live the crime rate in Chicago is pretty damn high. A lot of the guns being used are purchased illegally. I know us americans most all come off as gun totting nuts but really not many people around here actually own guns. Each state has its preference. Also the based on what stats you look at the numbers of shootings differ based on the question. In areas where the general public normally carry guns and are trained some forms of crime are much lower. However the stats for home shootings suggest that most people get shot in their home by someone living with them or their own gun being used improperly.

[Caite-chan]

I don't think it's a matter of control for the general population because the general population follows the law. It's the the handful of what I'll call "Special" people who usually have something wrong with them. They think the law doesn't apply to them and they will usually stock pile and get illegal guns and sawed off shotguns and then go all out in killing people. While I think there should be a limit on how big the bullets can be that still won't stop from getting illegally.

[[Desolate Divine]]

On that illegal gun thing, there is one major point. The gun the kid used in Sandy Hook cost about $1000. Could be bought from Walmart and delivered to your house. That same gun on the Australian black Market costs $34000. If these criminals have $34000 to spend, chances are they don't need to be criminals! Once guns become restricted, the cost of getting them illegally skyrockets.

[Rival Max]

On that illegal gun thing, there is one major point. The gun the kid used in Sandy Hook cost about $1000. Could be bought from Walmart and delivered to your house. That same gun on the Australian black Market costs $34000. If these criminals have $34000 to spend, chances are they don't need to be criminals! Once guns become restricted, the cost of getting them illegally skyrockets.

Different culture man. Our neighbors the north have a much lower gun crime rate. Like Drugs, illegal guns are everywhere and arent to hard to come by. There are government organizations that focus on illegal gun import and they only get a very small percentage of those guns. The problem isnt the gun and while the school shootings here are a tragedy limiting gun sales to the people who pass the screening would cause a lot more trouble. Because the general public would not be able to defend themselves from any criminal with a connection. That might increase the illegal gun flow here because people will feel its their right which it is.

[Neo Emolga]

On that illegal gun thing, there is one major point. The gun the kid used in Sandy Hook cost about $1000. Could be bought from Walmart and delivered to your house. That same gun on the Australian black Market costs $34000. If these criminals have $34000 to spend, chances are they don't need to be criminals! Once guns become restricted, the cost of getting them illegally skyrockets.

Thing is, people who are mentally deranged enough to want to kill someone will get creative if you take away the gun option. You can get everything you need to make explosives or cause arson from a local Home Depot or Lowe's (not to mention a whole lot of booby traps as well). You could also turn a car into a deadly weapon as well. So many everyday items can be fashioned and repurposed into weapons or means to hurt and kill someone with even just a little know-how. Do some guns make it easier? Arguably, yes. Would restricting/banning guns solve the problem? Not by a long shot. You bring up the Sandy Hook Massacre and the shooting at the Batman Premiere and I raise you the Boston Marathon Bombing and the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, which didn't involve a single gun and still thousands died because of it. Case in point, you don't need guns to kill people.

You need to target the people who have a history of violence, possible mental disabilities, erratic behavior, and/or ties with hate/violent organizations and make sure they're carefully watched and kept away from weapons. This will help minimize (minimize, not totally prevent) such occurrences from happening while allowing those who are responsible and mature enough to handle things like guns continue to purchase them.

[[Desolate Divine]]

JD
The thing is, this "Right to bear arms" was adopted over 200 years ago. Since then we have seen the creation of semi automatic and automatic weapons. When the second ammendment was adopted, the normal firearms were single shot muskets, which took nearly twenty seconds to reload, and were terribly inaccurate. If someone attempted a school shooting with one of those, chances are they would kill one person (If they were lucky enough to actually hit them) before being thrown to the ground and having the **** beaten out of them by anyone near by. Now guns are much quicker, easier to use, and more accurate. Where do we draw the line, and restrict what guns people can have? Do civillians really need automatic and semi-automatic weapons? Even if it were restricted to bolt action rifles. As for the criminals, if someone wants to shoot you, they will shoot you. They will not wait for you to pull your handgun off from its holster, or give you a few minutes to go to your gun cabinet and get your assault rifle out. Hell, if they saw you go for your gun, they would shoot you even quicker. As for the different culture thing, before we had our guns restricted, we had thirteen mass shootings (Mass being more than four people killed) in the eighteen years prior to it. Since then, we have had NONE.

Neo Emolga:
The difference between guns and things like fertilizer and cars is the purpose. Even when not used against humans, guns are made to kill. The only exception to that I can think of is clay pidgeon shooting, though if there are others, please let me know. Fertilizer and car bombs are being used against their intended purpose. In fact they are being used on the opposite end of the spectrum from their intended purpose.

It has been nineteen years since Gun Control was enacted in Australia. In the 19 years prior to 96 (1977-1996), there were four bombings in Australia. In the 19 years since, there has been one. I am not saying gun control has reduced it, seeing as there are numerous factors that could have been in play, but I am saying it sure as hell hasn't increased it either.

I will agree with you that increased background checks are needed. The fact that nearly anyone can buy a gun legally is an issue. Even if it starts with a database of people who are forbidden guns, for the reasons above you mentioned. Put simply, if someone is what you stated before, they are put on this list, and firearm dealers are given access to this. Photo ID is required to purchase a firearm, and the dealer searches the database to make sure they aren't selling an assault rifle to someone with a murder charge. Even if that were to come into effect, it would be safer than the current state.

[Rival Max]

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z65/cameraguyjoe36/i_have_the_right_to_bear_arms_by_teejaytiger-d47dfeb_zps2152da3a.gif

All Americans have this right! (who qualify)

There are steps to take to make the country safer. We do have laws against higher powered weapons btw. While you can increase the steps needed to legally purchase a gun that really wont solve the problem. What it comes down to is should someone be responsible for what their gun is used for. Say I take my dads gun and shoot someone should he be held responsible for my actions since he purchased the gun?

[[Desolate Divine]]

You are right, he shouldn't cop it for your acts. But that isn't the way society works. I am going to quote an Australian comedian. Be warned, he swears a bit, so I have a lot of spoilers, but the quote hits the nail on the head.

LANGUAGE WARNING





"Thats the thing. Why should I have my guns taken off me when I have done nothing wrong? Look, I agree with you, if you're a responsible gun owner and don't **** around with them, then you should be allowed your guns, you really should. But that's not how society works. We have to play to the 1 percenters that are such ****wits they ruin it for the rest of us. We have to walk as slow as our slowest person to keep society ****ing moving, right? I take drugs like a ****ing champion right? We should all be allowed to take ****ing drugs, but we can't, can we, because Sarah took drugs and she stabbed her ****ing kids! Thanks Sarah, you ****ed it up for everyone, right? Everyone should be allowed to drive their car as fast as they can do it, right? But we can't because because Jonothan got drunk and ran over a family! Thanks Jonothan! Now I have to drive at thirty you ****ing idiot! See, thats the thing. Why should I have my guns taken off me just because that guy is crazy?!?"










Though he is a comedian and is making jokes, he hits the nail right on the head. I don't necessarily agree with the drugs thing (and based on what he said in other things I am not sue if he is exaggerating or not), but it is the same logic. We have to go as slow as our slowest people. See what I mean JD.

I am not saying that someone should be held responsible is someone uses their gun to kill someone. Gun control isn't a punishment, but regulations. People who actually use their guns for proper reasons (farmers, hunters, security etc) would keep their guns. Any gun is dangerous if it falls into the wrong hands. But what is more likely to fall into the wrong hands, a gun that is owned by a civilian for a "what if I need to protect myself" type scenario, or a gun in the store that hasn't been bought because people who don't have a legitimate reason for wanting a gun cannot acquire it? The reason why one feels like they need to protect themselves is because there are so many guns out there. People don't feel safe without them, because there are so many out there that could be used against them. And in buying one to protect themselves from these guys, they are simply adding to the issue by bringing more guns to the general public.

Honestly, if guns were taken away and restricted, the value of those that manage to fall through the system would skyrocket, making illegal guns even more expensive. Yes, it is impossible to remove the issue completely, but it is the same as drugs. Just because we can't eliminate all of the illegal drugs and their issues, does that mean we should give up on drug laws all together?

BTW I like that pic :D

[Pokemon Trainer Sarah]

The reason why one feels like they need to protect themselves is because there are so many guns out there.
This is sort of the way I have always seen it. People buying guns to protect themselves from other people with guns. It seems like some messed up circle. I don't like guns at all and I am really glad they are tightly controlled here. It doesn't stop all incidents from happening, but it sure makes me feel a lot safer knowing that I don't have to worry about any random maniac pulling a gun out at any time.

I don't know much about guns and the USA. I only hear about shootings what seems like every other week. So my opinion is based only on that.

I've discussed this with friends from the US before, who took the view that guns are not dangerous, people are dangerous, and therefore people should be allowed to buy guns to protect themselves from dangerous people, or something to that effect. They say that if people can't have guns, then people will just use knives or whatever else they can. And that's true. But they're still not as dangerous, lethal and long-range as a gun. And I know who I would rather be facing.

I can see both sides of the argument. I can see why people would feel the need to own a gun in the US: to protect their families from other crazies with guns. But if there weren't so many guns in the first place, I feel the situation could only be improved. At the very least, people should require a gun license and have undergone some basic training before being allowed to buy one, and no one who has ever been charged or who has mental issues should be allowed to own one either. The fact that they're sold in places like Walmart is so amazingly ridiculous to me.

Many of the mass shootings in the US may still have happened even if guns were more tightly controlled. But maybe the messed up people who did it wouldn't have been able to get their hands on a gun so easily if it was just a little bit more regulated. Maybe the kids who accidentally shoot themselves/their parents every month because someone left a gun on the table would be okay. At the very very least, guns should be treated with more respect and not just as toys.

I have also always wondered, and I will pose the question to your guys now... why do they need guns capable of killing so easily? Why not use tasers or tranquilizers or even a gun that only allows 2 shots or something that can incapacitate but not usually kill? Then you are still protected, right? But you can't go massacring people.

Practically, I think the US is too far gone to ever get control over guns and therefore it might actually be better to own a gun to protect yourself. I just don't think I could live in a place where I had to do that. o.o

[Corey]

*hasn't read all the replies cos lazy*

I'm absolutely terrified of guns. I'm an American and have never handled a loaded gun, and never plan to. In my personal opinion, I think guns should be pretty harshly controlled. I don't think the argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is valid at all, because it's much more difficult and personal to kill someone without a gun. And then there's the argument that "spoons can kill people, ban spoons," which is quite ridiculous. Guns are specifically made to kill, while spoons, knives, etc aren't, which is the argument Jacob made.


They say that if people can't have guns, then people will just use knives or whatever else they can. And that's true. But they're still not as dangerous, lethal and long-range as a gun. And I know who I would rather be facing.

This. And again, the purpose of kitchen knives are not for killing (though there are combat knives, which is a whole other thing). Killing with knives or even bare hands is much more personal than just shooting someone, and it's be much harder for some people to do because of how personal it is. There are definitely some depraved individuals that could easily kill with or without a gun, but not all criminals are psychotic. They're no saints either, but the point is that the personal level of the crime would put a good chunk of people off.


I have also always wondered, and I will pose the question to your guys now... why do they need guns capable of killing so easily? Why not use tasers or tranquilizers or even a gun that only allows 2 shots or something that can incapacitate but not usually kill? Then you are still protected, right? But you can't go massacring people.

And this too! There are a very small minority who advocate from eliminating guns all together, but most just want guns controlled. It just needs to be more difficult to get guns, with all the loopholes closed. Getting a gun is pretty easy in America, with loopholes that allow criminals able to get guns legally (gun shows...). Banning assault rifles and ammunition clips is definitely what needs to be done, as well as mandating complete background checks. Like Jacob said, this makes it much more difficult for some to fall through the cracks.

If self-defense is the argument, then a small pistol with 2-3 shots should definitely suffice...I'm honestly not sure if I could shoot someone even in self-defense. If you can live with taking another life, no matter what the situation, then you're doing something better than me. If you want to hunt and you're not a convicted criminal, then you should have no problem getting a gun to hunt with. And I'm not sure what people have against being registered into a database if you buy a gun. You have to do that to get Sudafed, COLD MEDICINE, to prevent you from making meth. If you're not buying the gun to kill someone with, then what's the issue?

Clearly there is no way to completely eliminate gun violence, but it can certainly be reduced. There's no way to completely eliminate drugs either, but we still have drug laws, which makes drugs harder to get and harder to abuse. And I also agree with Sarah that the US maybe too far in to this whole gun craze...But that doesn't mean that nothing should be done.

[Homura]

Australia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE)

Anyway, I have the rare perspective of seeing the consequences of guns first hand. As part of my medical training, I did trauma. I saw a man who had his brains blown out by a gun. I've seen another who was shot in the abdomen and was bleeding out from inside his intestines. When you've seen the amount of damage guns do compared to knife wounds (which was also common in my area), you'd want to treat knife wounds all day and not gunshot wounds. It's just...so easy to just die from guns...