Gun Control Debate

[Karth]

Why don't they just regulate hunting... Make some huge parks and hunters can go their, rent guns, and hunt, take their kills with them, and return back the guns.  Japan has one of the most enforced gun laws and there is hardly any gun related crime there.

[Pinball Wizard]

Well I spent time thinking about why we are gun crazy and how "just take away the guns" is something almost completely impossible.

America was raised with guns. Pilgrims and voyages came here with guns. Shoot up the Indians, took their land, and lived on it. Fought other countries for land, like British colonists versus the French, and later colonist versus the British; Hell, people had guns to protect against American government. People had guns in the home, almost everyone in that time. Kids grew up with guns in their arms, shooting deer, hunting wabbits, some even target practice. Later, we expanded, shooting Indians, taking land, protecting land. The need of guns to overcome the less technological Indians. Later on, guns get more advanced, in the civil war, the family owned guns in the south, in the north not as much. Especially in the south, people were raised around guns.

Having guns actually became part of our culture. Now a days, people see all these muggings, brutal beatings, and so much violence. In the news, every day their is someone new shooting someone else. T.V. shows are showing serial killers just disgustingly kill innocent people. Movies, video games, t.v. shows, news, everything is getting violent. People feel safer with guns, they eat up all these horrible news thinking that its them about to be victimized next. They buy guns.

Now, why are people using guns for violence. Drug dealers, see someone stealing their business, shoots them up. Needed guns to do that. Children are being told "believe in yourself, your are one of a kind, you are special" but when other kids are bullying them and teasing them, they were raised with these creative ways of death, and to be heard, to be seen, to be recognized, instead of letting go what people did to them, they unleash the disgusting ways of evil. Just to be seen on the news, to be heard, to be "the special one" that they have been told they are.
People in the poor border areas are getting sucked up into the local gangs, a lot were started from territory disputes from Mexican groups entering America. A lot of guns are being used in these areas. Mexico has a ton of gangs and groups that come to America, a lot bring guns.

So all these things are making it impossible to take away the guns. Guns are a part of the culture.

Canada? Why are the not as gun crazed? They weren't raised with guns like we have.

Make it harder to get guns? Pretty freakin easy to get a gun in Mexico, or a gang, the average man is affected by this, not crazed killers that are actually thinking about killing it.

Why not target violence as a whole? I mean the sick f*ck in Colorado had a bomb in his apartment, we are lucky he didn't use that!

[Melmil]

Why don't they just regulate hunting... Make some huge parks and hunters can go their, rent guns, and hunt, take their kills with them, and return back the guns.  Japan has one of the most enforced gun laws and there is hardly any gun related crime there.

In the US, that would likely be interpreted as a violation of the right to bear arms guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. If the guns are moderated by official organizations and distributed by the government, it would likely result in a Supreme Court Case, which would likely rule against such strict moderation in the interest of preserving the existing national livelihood.

That's just my take on that, anyway.

[TheBoberton]

I don't have any issue with guns as a tool or piece of sporting equipment, but who the hell needs an M16 in their garden shed. Restrict the available weaponry to semi-automatic Sport & Hunting pieces, and it'll be a lot harder for someone to run around and massacre a school full of innocents.

I see that no one here listens..

The only difference between a 'hunting' rifle and an 'M16' are the aesthetic features of the weapon. In fact, the 'hunting' weapon usually fires a larger cartridge.

I have said before, and will say again, machine-guns are difficult and prohibitively expensive to obtain. An AK-47, manufactured before 1986, costs somewhere in the region of $1,000-$4,000.

However, even before they became so expensive, they weren't used in crime simply because an automatic weapon is not, contrary to popular belief, that accurate.

Why don't they just regulate hunting... Make some huge parks and hunters can go their, rent guns, and hunt, take their kills with them, and return back the guns.  Japan has one of the most enforced gun laws and there is hardly any gun related crime there.

And see, here's the argument that is entirely pointless in nature.

Because at the core, this argument seeks only to stop gun violence, and excludes any thought about any other kind of violence.

Many of the people under taking these mass murdering sprees were mentally ill but were not diagnosed.

And thus we should regulate firearms, rather than work upon how well we recognise mentally ill people within society? Who's to say that, without firearms, he wouldn't have blown up the school? Or started running kids down in the parking lot? Or use any of the millions of other ways to kill people? He was, after all, mentally ill, and set upon his task.

The purpose of guns is purely to kill things. People will always have arguments and problems so allowing them to carry tools that are only designed to KILL people is just a foolish escalation. No one is trying to say that if we remove guns it will just stop all homicides or gun related violence. That would be naive but what it will do is prevent many disagreements from escalating. This will save lives. There will probably still be massacres but there wont be as many.

So instead of educating people on why shooting people in an argument is a bad idea, and trusting them to practice their common sense, we should cater to the lowest of our population, and allow them to freely wreak havoc upon whomever they wish?

Also you mentioned that people who buy guns are not "random" people. Well yes they are random people who just happen to live in America and wish to use a handgun. I don't see how they are somehow not just random members of the public. Frankly their training with that gun a few times a month down the shooting range will not save any children from being shot by lunatics. It will most likely just mean that burglars carry guns to and more people end up dead. The right to bear arms is an archaic amendment designed to protect people from the state or an invasion. How likely is that to happen in America at the moment? Not at all. It is obsolete and dangerous as the simply facts are that people kill people but we are much better at killing people with guns.

I meant that they aren't 'random' people, in the sense that that they don't simply decide to go out and buy a gun one day. There's actually a process involved that takes a while, and it isn't as simple as handing money to some shady dealer on the corner.. oh well, I suppose it is that easy for those in the gangs.. but not for the average American.

I can understand and respect that you wish to protect your rights but i just feel and the numbers show that because of Americans current right to bear arms far more people are dying than in comparably developed nations with better gun control. Guns are fun to fire and nice to look at but ultimately their purpose is to kill people and i dont think the general public can always be trusted with that kind of power over life and death.

Could you imagine what America would be like, assuming you removed the one decent deterrent to gangs who already have entire stockpiles of illegal weapons?

It would be Hell.

And no, the general public cannot always be trusted with that power. That's why other people have firearms, and the police are there to prevent an escalation of arms.

[Odysseus]

But it doesn't matter what your argument is though, it is PROVEN that countries with strict gun regulations have lower crime rates. It is simply a fact.

[Rogov]

This debate can cleary go on forever... and will go nowhere. It's evident that nobody here (myself included) is willing to accept a new perspective on the issue. We're just flapping our mouths and repeating ourselves.

Again, I'm very sorry I brought this up at all on that other thread.

I sense an impending lock.

[Pinball Wizard]

I see no reason for a lock, as this is a debate thread. Just because you feel one way and you notice the other side won't budge, doesn't mean there should be a lock.

America is free, people in government notice that if they take away guns, a lot of people will be upset. There would be a lot of law suits and complaints to bring them back.

The only thing they should do is raise the price to heavy duty guns, ex. AK-47, M16. Check family records, do they have kids? Has anyone in the family ran into trouble before?

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. So it seems America is just full of sick people sometimes.

[Rogov]

I just saw Beaver looking at it and sort of jumped to that conclusion...

And I don't think anyone here is disputing the fact that people, not guns, kill people.

But it's just that people with guns kill people a lot more easily than people without.

[Spearing]

So now I'm reading a lot about bombs.

Honestly, people. Let's be realistic and logical. Using a bomb isn't just taking something wrapped up in a tar-soaked sock and throwing it at a school shouting "I WIN" or anything. You actually have to rig it, create an ignition system, and go through a lot of trouble. It's easy to make one, and harder yet to detonate it successfully.

Case in point: You have to get INTO the school first.

My school, for example, ID's everyone (students too) before we even enter. Then, we go through a metal detector, and all of our bags are checked by gloved guards. All contraband is confiscated and you are held to the side. We have a State Trooper on duty every day of school we have. The security camera system has no blindspots. All cameras can rotate 360 degrees.


So explain to me how this person will get a bomb into the school.

Also, if someone finds him doing this, do you not think they'd do something? I really do think that most people, after running out of arguments against gun laws, just simply say that guns are the lesser of two evils.


Also, just so this is said, let me also say how difficult it is to make a bomb if you don't know how.

[Gragnok]

I spent 11 years at my old school (in London), it had a low fence, a basic electronic gate for cars with an intercom (to get in you just said im here to pick my son up there were no actual checks) and a few security guards who sat in a hut watching tv. During my time at that school we had 1 break in when during the night someone jumped over the fence and stole a couple of classroom projectors.

My school, for example, ID's everyone (students too) before we even enter. Then, we go through a metal detector, and all of our bags are checked by gloved guards. All contraband is confiscated and you are held to the side. We have a State Trooper on duty every day of school we have. The security camera system has no blindspots. All cameras can rotate 360 degrees.

I think that the fact your school has to have such extensive security pretty much speaks for itself on the topic of gun control. That is the kind of security that in the UK we expect to see for  buildings such as the London Mayors office...

[Hekko]

In the US, that would likely be interpreted as a violation of the right to bear arms guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. If the guns are moderated by official organizations and distributed by the government, it would likely result in a Supreme Court Case, which would likely rule against such strict moderation in the interest of preserving the existing national livelihood.

That's just my take on that, anyway.

This sort of dogmatism is a bit alarming to me. Because it simply assumes that the 2nd amendment is something that automatically is something that is right and relevant in todays society.

The question should be, what is the incremental difference of having more gun regulation? The answer probably is that there will be significantly less guncrime, while other crime increases. What's worse guncrime or knife/baseball bat crime? My gut certainly tells me that knives and baseball bats are overall less dangerous to society than firearms.

If society works in a way where everyone has to be "safe" the people who do not, or cannot, carry firearms are unfairly left at the mercy of everyone else, hardly a society where I want to live in. I certainly have no interest in walking around with a pistol everywhere I go, which would mean that anyone who has bothered to walk into their local Guns 'R Us has the option to force me to do things against my will. Sure, most people could boss me around anyway if push would come to shove, but the chanse of someone intervening in that case would be alot higher.

Ultimately, guncontrol is a bit like the death penalty (but for different reasons). Executing people for creating computer viruses would be extremly profitable for society (more profitable than executing murderers), however, we make the choise that we do not want to live in a society where you take the life of another human for something that like that. My reasoning is similar relating to gun control, I am liberal at heart, and agree from an ideological standpoint that one should have a right to have firearms, for collecting, recreational shooting, hunting, or even self defence, but the overall effect it has on society is too bad, and as such strict regulation is needed.

[TheBoberton]

Interesting. I'd be worried that your school has such a security system. I've never seen such a thing, and I live in a place that is considered... truly evil, by those who argue against firearms. What state do you reside in?

This sort of dogmatism is a bit alarming to me. Because it simply assumes that the 2nd amendment is something that automatically is something that is right and relevant in todays society.

The right to defend yourself against all threats shall always be relevant, regardless of the era or tools involved.

The question should be, what is the incremental difference of having more gun regulation? The answer probably is that there will be significantly less guncrime, while other crime increases. What's worse guncrime or knife/baseball bat crime? My gut certainly tells me that knives and baseball bats are overall less dangerous to society than firearms.

The question really is, do we want the weak to be subject to the will of the strong?

As it is, a small weak person can stop a taller stronger one, without having to get themselves killed in the process. If we were to resort to baseball bats and knives (Assuming that the criminals would simply follow the gun laws put in place), then we shall return once more to the idea of 'Survival of the Fittest'.

If society works in a way where everyone has to be "safe" the people who do not, or cannot, carry firearms are unfairly left at the mercy of everyone else, hardly a society where I want to live in. I certainly have no interest in walking around with a pistol everywhere I go, which would mean that anyone who has bothered to walk into their local Guns 'R Us has the option to force me to do things against my will. Sure, most people could boss me around anyway if push would come to shove, but the chanse of someone intervening in that case would be alot higher.

The thing is, society has and always will be that way. People who have resources and are willing to use them shall always be capable of forcing those who do/are not to do as they wish. The same applies not only to weapons, but to money, transportation, food, etc.
"People who can't kill will always be subject to those who can."

It's a sad, horrible thing, but something that will remain unless human nature itself changes.

[Karth]

Look at Japan, I don't see the survival of the fittest in that aspect happening there with them banning guns and having hardly any gun related crimes.  Maybe India is like that, with gangs their using bats and knives rather than guns, but still you can't stab 20 people and kill them all, the point is that with a gun you hardly need any training and can kill 20 people easily.  I just heard some of the heavy right winged senators state in instances such as the conn shooting that principals should have guns, lol.  I really think nothing can be done in congress to ban guns, with the NRA kissing all of their asses.

[Gragnok]

TheBoberton having read your responses i must say i'm very worried indeed. But you have clarified some things for me to. Firstly i'm extremely concerned about the place you live if it has given you the impression that without guns strong people would just mercilessly attack their physically weaker counterparts with bats and knives. If your assessment is correct which i must say i doubt then it is a truly damning reflection of that society which suggests a far deeper problem.

I have also realised that gun control is a debate that can never be won as the pro control control side approach it from a logical and statistical perspective while the anti gun control lobby approach it from a highly politicised and ideological side, thus making meaningful debate and change unachievable.

Though i have significant respect for ideological positions in favour of freedom of choice, in this instance I personally cannot reconcile my political thoughts with what I see as the unpleasant statistical reality that people cannot be trusted with things that's only purpose is to kill.

edit: oh yeah i forgot to mention the above means im cashing my chips and leaving this discussion. Thanks for the interesting debate though!

[TheBoberton]

TheBoberton having read your responses i must say i'm very worried indeed. But you have clarified some things for me to. Firstly i'm extremely concerned about the place you live if it has given you the impression that without guns strong people would just mercilessly attack their physically weaker counterparts with bats and knives. If your assessment is correct which i must say i doubt then it is a truly damning reflection of that society which suggests a far deeper problem.

I never said they would do such a thing. I did say however, that without firearms, confrontations become more about strength and size, allowing such things to happen.
Without a firearm, a child would not be able to defend him/herself against a home invader(s) who intends to do unspeakable things.
Without firearms, a woman might not be able to stop a would-be rapist. (I wanted to avoid this example, as it's oft-overused.)
Without firearms, that elderly man down the street can't stop the criminals who seek to do him harm.

The gun, as I've said before, is an equalizer. It puts everyone on equal footing, regardless of strength, size, age, or physical disability.

I have also realised that gun control is a debate that can never be won as the pro control control side approach it from a logical and statistical perspective while the anti gun control lobby approach it from a highly politicised and ideological side, thus making meaningful debate and change unachievable.

I believe I speak from a logical standpoint, rather than an ideological, one having witnessed what's happened around the US over the course of the past two decades. (And read about the past century.) Honestly, there's one way we can go with this, to prevent as many deaths as possible, and that isn't to remove the firearms. The problem people refuse to face is that the weapons themselves aren't the issue, but rather the culture present in the States, that makes being a criminal seem almost.. 'cool'.

And I was presented with an interesting point yesterday. That being that criminals start mass shooting to get attention. They know that the moment they start pulling the trigger, the entire world's eyes are upon them, and will be for years.

Though i have significant respect for ideological positions in favour of freedom of choice, in this instance I personally cannot reconcile my political thoughts with what I see as the unpleasant statistical reality that people cannot be trusted with things that's only purpose is to kill.

Of course people cannot be trusted. However, that goes so far as to bring up the question 'Who will listen to this law?'. Of course, we can debate on that until we're both dead, and we'll not come to an agreement.


I feel that I need to note that I'm not trying to get in the last word here, simply bringing up some legitimate points.