Gun Control Debate

[Pinball Wizard]

Well, ask yourself this. Do criminals care if owning a gun is illegal? No. They will get one anyways. What does it mean for them? Their victim will not have a gun, and therefore there is no risk of doing your crime.

Ehm, wrong! Many european countries have so well regulated arm-laws that only the very most hardcore criminals have guns and they are just extremely rare.

Well you guys don't have Mexico to the south of you, do you? Guns and gangs are rampant in the southern border states in the poorer communities, a lot of it is from Mexico.

And criminals are so f*cked up most of the time where jail isn't that big of a deal. Some people get used to it, constant violence, basically free food, a gym, and a place to sleep.

[Odysseus]

Research in Canada at least, shows that almost all criminals don't buy guns from any source, neither legal or illegal. Almost all firearm bearing criminals stole the gun from a registered and licensed firearm owner. Therefore if getting guns is hard, then there will be less sources to steal from (aka less firearm bearing criminals).

My take on that anyway.

[TheBoberton]

Ehm, wrong! Many european countries have so well regulated arm-laws that only the very most hardcore criminals have guns and they are just extremely rare. I mean, carrying a knife in public here in Denmark can easily put you right in jail. Calling it a police-state? Nah, you can just stop carrying a knife if you don't have any legal purpose for it.
There was a documentary a few years ago in danish television where a guy that had been undercover in a gang couldn't even buy a gun after 1½ years and getting quite deep into the gang.
So no, with proper laws you can easily avoid guns in a society.

Edit: And no risk in doing a crime? WHat? So punishment isn't a risk? Several years in prison? Nah but okay, after all USA is the country with most prisoners per capita...

Comparing Western Europe to the US is like comparing Canada to Ukraine. You have to take into account the various factors that would enable criminals to act with weapons. Whereas in Great Britain or Canada, there are no borders shared with unstable, crime riddled states, or fallen empires, the US and Ukraine do. This enables criminals, or would-be criminals to get weapons without having to go through the usual channels that a law-abiding citizen would. It also allows larger, organised groups (The cartels in the US) to act with impunity, without fear of retribution. Taking away a citizen's tool of defense would do nothing to stop these people, and would in fact encourage them.

And I don't know about you, but I carry a knife simply because I can. I have no specific reason or need to do so, but I carry one in the case that I may need it.

Research in Canada at least, shows that almost all criminals don't buy guns from any source, neither legal or illegal. Almost all firearm bearing criminals stole the gun from a registered and licensed firearm owner. Therefore if getting guns is hard, then there will be less sources to steal from (aka less firearm bearing criminals).

My take on that anyway.

This could, by the same logic, apply to cars or money. Should we get rid of them, to keep criminals from stealing them?

[Melmil]

I don't think we need any gun control.

Why get rid of these babies?



This is really going nowhere. You're going to have the ardent supporters and ardent opponents stuck in a wheel of circular reasoning, as the entire debate has become in reality.

The issue can't be resolved without serious alienation to one party, which makes society question who they want to alienate.

[Gragnok]

People will always kill other people but if they don't have fully automatic assault weapons then it becomes harder to kill people thus reducing the number of people they kill.

The NRA and other anti gun control lobbies argument that guns act as a deterrent is so obviously idiotic that anyone can see it for what it is, fear mongering and profiteering. None of these nutters going on shooting sprees are worried about dying,  most kill themselves or the police kill them, not some random stranger who bought a handgun the other day at the mall.

The debate about gun control isn't really about the constitution its about the large companies that profit from the domestic firearms market in America and dont want to see the laws change. This greed is in my view directly responsible for the deaths of these children and innocent people as the current laws allow a mentally ill people access to automatic weapons.

[TheBoberton]

People will always kill other people but if they don't have fully automatic assault weapons then it becomes harder to kill people thus reducing the number of people they kill.

Automatic weapons have never been used in anything other than gang-related violence, with a few exceptions. And the gang-related violence rarely rely upon legally obtained firearms.

(One of the few exceptions actually involved a police officer.)

The NRA and other anti gun control lobbies argument that guns act as a deterrent is so obviously idiotic that anyone can see it for what it is, fear mongering and profiteering. None of these nutters going on shooting sprees are worried about dying,  most kill themselves or the police kill them, not some random stranger who bought a handgun the other day at the mall.

I'm sure Kennesaw, Georgia feels that way. You see, they made it mandatory to have a firearm in your house if you live within city limits, and crime within the city has disappeared.

And you really think that concealed weapon carriers are simply people who purchase firearms at random? Many spend at least an hour a month at the range, ensuring that they and their weapon are in fit condition to handle anything that may threaten the safety of those around them.

allow a mentally ill people access to automatic weapons.

No.. no, they don't. People who have been diagnosed with mental illnesses cannot purchase firearms.

Please, educate yourself before you seek to curtail the rights of others.

[Jacob]

No matter how many regulations they try and bring in, they will never be able to fully stop it unless there are heavily armed roadblocks on EVERY street, people can make home made firearms, and on the deep web you can get guns from illegal auction sites that are completely untraceable. The point being this is never 100% preventable so it's all good and well arguing about it, and I believe that guns should be outlawed, but we can't prevent it all the time so we may as well pay more into training on dealing with these situations, and preventing as many as possible

[Odysseus]

I agree with Jacob. Keeping guns won't eliminate crime and banning them won't either. There will always be criminals, but we have to think of how we can keep criminal activity at it's lowest.

[TheBoberton]

I agree with Jacob. Keeping guns won't eliminate crime and banning them won't either. There will always be criminals, but we have to think of how we can keep criminal activity at it's lowest.

And we can do that by permitting such people to operate with impunity, without fear of the fact that the house they're about to break into might contain an armed 'victim'? The issue is that criminals will use whatever they have on hand, and that can be anything from a rifle to a machete to a rock. The advantage that firearms bring is that they are the single greatest force equalizer in a fight.

[Odysseus]

I agree with Jacob. Keeping guns won't eliminate crime and banning them won't either. There will always be criminals, but we have to think of how we can keep criminal activity at it's lowest.

And we can do that by permitting such people to operate with impunity, without fear of the fact that the house they're about to break into might contain an armed 'victim'? The issue is that criminals will use whatever they have on hand, and that can be anything from a rifle to a machete to a rock. The advantage that firearms bring is that they are the single greatest force equalizer in a fight.

However someone can defend themselves with a machete, or rock the same as with a rifle.

[TheBoberton]

However someone can defend themselves with a machete, or rock the same as with a rifle.

Aye, but can a weaker person defend against multiple stronger people with machetes and rocks?

72 Years Old
11 Years Old

In each of these situations, there was no way for the victim to defend themselves without the equalizer that is a firearm.

[Odysseus]

However, as said there will be break ins and murders no matter what. But there would be less if firearms were better regulated.

[TheBoberton]

However, as said there will be break ins and murders no matter what. But there would be less if firearms were better regulated.

So you would see Jack Crawford dead, just so you can sleep at night? He was assaulted by someone without a firearm, and if he had not had one on hand, he would have been killed.

[Odysseus]

However, as said there will be break ins and murders no matter what. But there would be less if firearms were better regulated.

So you would see Jack Crawford dead, just so you can sleep at night? He was assaulted by someone without a firearm, and if he had not had one on hand, he would have been killed.

Someone will always die no mater what we do.
Think of the amount of incedents that could have been prevented with better restrictions. Think how many days you wake up in the morning, turn on the news and hear about local shootings that could have been prevented by better firearm regulation. Compare that to the amount of events that envolve a firearm saving someone.

[DaMonkey]

I don't see a point in arguing anymore. Besides. Could you imagine what would happen if the government tried to heavily regulate an already armed populace. It makes me laugh, actually.