Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Fuzzknuckles

Gun Control

Recommended Posts

Dr. Robotnik

 

I can't agree with this at all. Burglarizing someone's house is bad enough, armed or not, attacking with a weapon or not. "Proportionality" shouldn't be that much of a consideration once it gets to the point of breaking and entering, or worse yet, a full-on physical attack

Whether you agree with it or not, that's how the law works in most of the civilised world. The US is the exception here.

 

 

I don't necessarily think the US should be an exception in this regard.

 

 

 

Not to mention the personal guilt, threat of retribution, and overall distraction that comes with that sort of thing.

 

There shouldn't be any "threat of retribution". I'll admit, it's not always easy to tell when someone's trespassing or whatever, but if someone actually broke into my house? I don't think I would feel guilty, and I don't think anyone should.

Edited by Dr. Robotnik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

It's not a social thing. It's innate. People kill all the time during wars with plenty of the social support and encouragement along the way, yet still carry a sense of guilt. Not only is killing someone one of the most lonely experiences in the world by definition because not many people can relate, but its also taboo. Cops carry guilt about having to kill people too. I'm sure that seeing a childhood family picture at a memorial for someone you just killed would evoke some degree guilt even if the shooting was legally justified. If I was carrying, I would hate to actually end up having to use the thing. Preparation is key, but war should be last option.

 

 

As for the retribution thing, it really just depends. If you shoot some homeless mugger armed with a knife, he probably won't have any people aiming for your head afterwards. But if you shoot a gang member while thwarting a robbery in your own neighborhood, then you might have to look over your shoulder for some time.

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

So of course I cannot verify such a thing, but the local sheriff's department likes to tell people "If they come in your house, shoot them." That kind of conflicts with our state law which insists you have reasonable fear of loss of life or significant injury. My guess is the local Sherrif picks and chooses which cases to refer to the prosecutor, so it's only in instances which they define illegal that the DA rules if it was justifiable homicide. In many ways this effectively nullifies the language of the law, because it has been modified with an explicit condition of "if they're in your house" to determine whether it will ever even be charged as homicide. So despite what a state law might state, the way the local law enforcement makes arrests might differ greatly. The result is most people in my area actually belie it is legal to kill someone for stepping foot in their home, and the reason they do is because the local Sherrif told them so. When the local law enforcement basically says "We won't arrest you if you shoot a home intruder" then whatever the state law says about reasonable fear is irrelevant.

 

Now all that said, I have a hard time believing my local community is very unique.

 

sivis,

 

How about people who were hospitalized for depression? Because of the Brady Bill, any person who had ever been court ordered to 72 hour observation is a prohibited person. The only recourse for such a person to regain their ability to purchase a fire arm is to get a psychological evaluation stating they're better basically, then petition the court which made the order to suppress reporting the incident to the NICS, AND have a judge agree they're no longer a threat. So in addition to the cost of hiring a psychologist, the cost of petitioning the court as well as associated fees falls on the person trying to regain their rights, they have to jump through legal hoops and undergo a process there is no streamlined way of taking. Even felons fave firearm rights restoration lawyers advertised on the radio, but when it comes to the mental health side of things, there's no attorneys that specialize, it's all on the person to do themselves. Oh and it's not a clear process, involving documents requested and submitted in triplicate, and even knowing where and how to request said documents, more associated costs, etc.

 

I would call that an inconvenient burden. Before defending it by citing the need to protect mentally unwell individuals, keep in mind the lofty laws it takes in the US to have someone committed to a mental institution. Then after that also take into consideration that this extends to people who were sentenced to in-patient drug treatment as well.

 

A lot of felons who are prohibited are also non-violent felons so it's arguable that they shouldn't be prohibited, especially if we're talking about felony drug possession. Frankly I think the fact these people are stripped of their right to vote is more important, but you combine that with the fact we're taking their guns too and is it really any wonder people want to make up conspiracy theories about our government disarming us? I think conservatives would probably point this out more if they weren't the ones in favor of draconian drug laws and mass imprisonment, that's why it's a little hard to take that argument seriously. They're the type to look at police shooting unarmed people in huge numbers and go, "We need guns to make sure Obama doesn't put us in FEMA death camps".

 

Anyway you're absolutely right that private sales are a huge problem. Do you know it's a class C felony to unlawfully posess a firearm in the US? Class C felons can't vote. If you're a prohibited person because you were held under 72 hour observation, nobody tells you that you'll no longer be able to own guns. IF you find out, it will probably be after being denied on an ATF background check. Then get this... You have to mail the FBI just to find out why! That's if you're "lucky".

 

If you're unlucky, you might buy your guns private sale from the get go, and since there is no background check to catch it, you are then a felon. If you were ever arrested, you'd be charged and convicted of a felony and lose your voting rights, and it's very unlikely you'll get off with anything less than probation.

 

That's how we "protect" the mentally ill with firearm background checks in the US. I don't have an overall point, just some insight into how fraught with peril it can actually be for "lawful" gun owners. The line between lawful and unlawful gets blurry and with huge repercussions, and the fact there's no unified system of control is what I think is to blame. So while there are certainly aspects of gun control that truly do complicate things for gun owners in unfair ways, it probably wouldn't be such disarray with more universal regulations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

The line between lawful and unlawful gets blurry and with huge repercussions

 

Indeed. Especially once we explore the legal concept of "constructive possession" in the context of firearms. The lack of a federal standardization in the laws makes gun control nearly impossible. This lack of standardization is a direct result of the various states having such polarized attitudes towards guns. And much like environmental policy, the laws in a neighboring state can reverse the "progress" made in another state. The regulatory process is a mess.

 

 

Lawful gun owners are rightfully skeptical of the current direction of gun control. The conspiracy theorists and gun nuts are a fringe element of the gun control skeptics at the end of the day.

 

 

In all honesty, what gun control is to the Democrats is what illegal immigration is to the Republicans. Though the gun control movement has more integrity than the anti-illegal immigration movement, it's still essentially just a fear and anger-driven campaign that projects an exaggerated account of what's actually happening. A lot of outrage, but no proposed policy that would actually work. While gun violence is without a doubt a problem that needs attention, the gun control debate has been so dishonest that we have to wonder if gun violence is really spiraling out of control? And the answer is an emphatic "no". At best, US gun violence is really only a major problem to the extent that it outpaces the rest of the "first world". Gun homicide has actually decreased all while the number legally-owned firearms has increased (but the % of households w/ firearms decreased). When we account for the fact that most gun deaths are by suicide, we kind of negate much of the fear-mongering "out of control gun homicide" narrative put forth by the Dems. So it's far from an epidemic.....and the existing gun homicide figures would plummet if we ended our failed Drug War just as they did after the ending of alcohol prohibition. In fact, that would be one of the most cost-effective ways to decrease gun violence with the stroke of a pen (enforcement appropriations and expenditures would actually decrease as a result of such legislation).

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

If you think having a homicide rate five times the average of other developed countries is acceptable as long as it's gradually declining that's fair enough, but I doubt it's a view many other people share. It's abundantly clear from the statistics that significantly more than half US homicides involve a firearm; I simply don't buy the assertion that policies such a proper registration and restrictions on private and straw purchases would do nothing to decrease this number.

 

The real elephant in the room is mass shootings. These have not declined; in fact over the last few years they have increased dramatically in frequency and scope. The US has a really serious problem with mass murderers and spree killers, far worse than just about anywhere in the world. We can all agree that this is a manifestation of problems in the mental health system, of extremist views coming to a head, but it would be naïve to pretend it wasn't ensbled by firearms. And whilst addressing the causes is time consuming, we can limit the effects by implementing and enforcing reasonable controls on the resale of firearms and unifying an approach to registration. We've tried it the NRA's way, the presence of concealed carry individuals has not succeeded in preventing these mass shooting events from unfolding.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

If you think having a homicide rate five times the average of other developed countries is acceptable as long as it's gradually declining that's fair enough, but I doubt it's a view many other people share. It's abundantly clear from the statistics that significantly more than half US homicides involve a firearm; I simply don't buy the assertion that policies such a proper registration and restrictions on private and straw purchases would do nothing to decrease this number.

The real elephant in the room is mass shootings. These have not declined; in fact over the last few years they have increased dramatically in frequency and scope. The US has a really serious problem with mass murderers and spree killers, far worse than just about anywhere in the world. We can all agree that this is a manifestation of problems in the mental health system, of extremist views coming to a head, but it would be naïve to pretend it wasn't ensbled by firearms. And whilst addressing the causes is time consuming, we can limit the effects by implementing and enforcing reasonable controls on the resale of firearms and unifying an approach to registration. We've tried it the NRA's way, the presence of concealed carry individuals has not succeeded in preventing these mass shooting events from unfolding.

I am actually fervently opposed to framing this as a mental health issue, at least in the way the conversations have gone so far. Clearly there is a psychological dynamic at play here, and I have to agree it's a two part system. Something has happened to the American psyche that has made people embrace rampage shootings as a known, kind of familiar event. Then of course the other part is the access to guns but what do you think has caused our society to act so much different? I mean gun violence in terms of domestic disputes and street crime is one thing, but when there's a "major event" type of mass shooting so often it really makes sense to factor in psychology sure but I don't agree where people are leading with it. It's always talk about psychotropic medication, socially mal-adjusted and/or sexually frustrated young men. We've heard it all before when talking about serial killers too though, the generalizing and "profiles" but what's damaging is people are proposing this with absolutely no scientific backing and in the face of statistics that show mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. It seems to be used more as a scape-goat, "Well let's just take them away from crazy people." However there's not a lot of real research into what kind of psychological factors are involved.

 

Actually John Oliver just did a bit segment on his last show about a law that blocks the CDC from researching why mass shootings might be happening. So once again it seems to come down to the severe lack of compromise on either side of the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

If you think having a homicide rate five times the average of other developed countries is acceptable as long as it's gradually declining that's fair enough, but I doubt it's a view many other people share.

 

The current homicide rate is not acceptable. I explicitly stated the opposite. I just think that the need to introduce some of the popular gun control half-measures that have been put forth is exaggerated. Most people in the US don’t share this view because they have less exposure to firearms, little to no understanding of what actually drives the homicide rate, and have been provided with skewed information/false assumptions from politicians. The unpopularity of a view has little to do with its correctness. Much like the issue of illegal immigration in the Republican party, certain gun control proposals (specifically the Assault Weapons Ban) in the Democratic party have evolved into a belief system more than anything.

 

I simply don't buy the assertion that policies such a proper registration and restrictions on private and straw purchases would do nothing to decrease this number.

 

Neither do I. Things like these along with more expanded background checks are what many non-Republican gun owners would consider to be the "common sense gun control" measures.

 

The problem is that Democrats like to conflate "common sense gun control" with things like 30 mags, tactical grips, and cosmetic features on certain rifles that are largely irrelevant in the context of our systemic gun violence which is primarily committed with handguns and sometimes shotguns. They created (or at least expanded the use of) the term "assault weapon" because that was the only way to make the restriction of these otherwise moot gun features seem like "common sense".....because the public, who overwhelmingly doesn't know the difference between an "assault weapon" rifle and an assault rifle could say, "Well of course people shouldn't be allowed to walk the street with fully auto assault rifles. That's common sense. Come on now gun owners...stop being crass!" The term was designed to be misused. Street crimes involving the semiautomatic rifles targeted by Congressional AWBs are pretty rare. That is why it takes one these mass shootings for a renewed AWB to become relevant. And even the claim that AWBs alone (instead of broader gun control) materially reduce mass shootings is a stretch.

 

It is the sneaking in of these restrictions, ultimately culminating in an "Assault Weapons Ban", that I am opposed to. Not only because I call bullsh*t on its effectiveness, but because it degrades the integrity of Congressional gun control efforts by alienating much of the gun-owning populace that would otherwise support gun control. This sort of thing drives a segment of gun owners to join the NRA who otherwise wouldn't. But that's not to say people only join the NRA for political reasons...

 

 

We've tried it the NRA's way, the presence of concealed carry individuals has not succeeded in preventing these mass shooting events from unfolding.

Well the NRA is not necessarily representative of the views most US gun owners given the lobby's history of opposing some pretty sensible gun reforms. They certainly aren't representative of my views. Even many members of the NRA share a very limited political agenda with the organization. The NRA provides numerous benefits and services to apolitical gun owners and gun sportsmen.

 

 

@SagaciousKJB

 

Mass shootings shouldn't be dismissed as purely mental health issues as many gun nuts have done. But the "crazy element" has been scapegoated to the same extent that "assault weapons" have. It's one thing to fight for gun control in general. We just shouldn't develop the habit of blaming individual models of guns on the basis of them being used in a mass shooting. Especially when only one and how many hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions?) of legally sold "assault weapons" are used in such a manner? In reality there are a number of cultural elements that drive mass shootings including but certainly not limited to...

 

- cultural glorification of violence (especially as a means of attaining legitimacy/"winning")

- certain toxic elements of US gun culture (relationship between guns masculinity, "rights" at the expense of public safety, building arsenals w/o proper access controls, cowboy mentality, retaliation mentality, etc.)

- ineffective/lack of gun control measures

- mental illness (especially as a byproduct of our culture and economy)

- bullying/alienation

- violent demeanor + poor socialization

- lack of anger management (progressively building up anger)

- PTSD (perpetrators of violence often being victims of it beforehand)

- history of psychiatric drug use (especially a poorly-planned discontinuation of use)

- sexual frustration

 

.....Actually, the latter two elements are addressed by the mainstream media and politicians very rarely if at all. Especially as framed by our politicians, gun control just seems to be the most tangible and controversial of all these elements. So that's where the public attention tends concentrate.

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

If you think having a homicide rate five times the average of other developed countries is acceptable as long as it's gradually declining that's fair enough, but I doubt it's a view many other people share. It's abundantly clear from the statistics that significantly more than half US homicides involve a firearm; I simply don't buy the assertion that policies such a proper registration and restrictions on private and straw purchases would do nothing to decrease this number.

 

The real elephant in the room is mass shootings. These have not declined; in fact over the last few years they have increased dramatically in frequency and scope. The US has a really serious problem with mass murderers and spree killers, far worse than just about anywhere in the world. We can all agree that this is a manifestation of problems in the mental health system, of extremist views coming to a head, but it would be naïve to pretend it wasn't ensbled by firearms. And whilst addressing the causes is time consuming, we can limit the effects by implementing and enforcing reasonable controls on the resale of firearms and unifying an approach to registration. We've tried it the NRA's way, the presence of concealed carry individuals has not succeeded in preventing these mass shooting events from unfolding.

While I have nothing against sensible regulation, and will be first to admit that we have significant gaps and loopholes in that department, I have to say, mass shootings argument is a terrible one.

 

We have a crazy number of them. This is bad. But we don't have the quantity you'd expect if firearms were the main problem. Fatality rates in mass shootings aren't even a drop in a bucket of all firearm fatalities. In fact, you're about as likely to be struck dead by lightning as get shot in a mass shooting. If this was a gun problem, in a country where number of guns is getting close to parity with population and the ease with which convicted criminals obtain firearms, you'd expect more deaths if this was as simple as ease of gun access.

 

Now, I don't know about you, but I'm having hard time picturing a nutcase who decided to kill a bunch of people just give up on the idea because he couldn't get a gun. It's much easier to picture that person plowing a car into a crowd. Or making an improvised bomb. In fact, these very things have happened with disturbed people whom our gun regulations actually have managed to prevent from obtaining weapons. What it doesn't seem to do is make crazy people less crazy.

 

We're still back to the discussion of why we have more cases than the rest of the world, but I'd bet money to donuts that sh*t healthcare and a host of other socio-economic problems have something to do with it. And I'd much rather see us try to solve these problems, which objectively cost more lives even without connections to mass shootings, then to keep trying to come up with band-aid fixes that work about as well as prayer does against lightning fatalities.

 

 

This is particularly relevant as we're entering an era where gun regulation is going to become increasingly difficult. Under current US law, the only part requiring a registration is the gun's receiver. I've been able to print out a functional AR-15 receiver on a 3D printer. Still needs all the other parts to make it complete, but these can be purchased on eBay with no checks. Under current laws, this is entirely legal and yields me a gun that's not controlled or registered by anyone. It'd be illegal to sell such a gun, of course, but that is unlikely to stop a lot of people from doing so anyways. And the law can be changed, surely, but that's going to work about as well as banning piracy of software. Finally, government can step in and attempt to control harder to manufacture parts, like the barrel or bolt and carrier assembly, but given current developments in rapid prototyping, that'd be merely a delay even if you could enact it fast enough before it becomes irrelevant.

 

So if the only solution you're proposing to gun violence is improving regulation, I have bad news for you. Technology has officially outpaced legislature on that matter. If we aren't prepared to deal with firearms as something you can simply pirate off the internet and print out at the local print shop, then we're not prepared. And, well, we aren't.

 

The good news is that we have plenty of lethal objects all around us that aren't getting misused nearly as frequently. Despite ease of access, we don't see nearly as much knife violence or accidental deaths. We don't see vehicles intentionally used as weapons all that much. Power tools. Many other items all around us that can easily cause serious injury or death to great many people, but which we are used to think of as just another tool to be used with care. We need guns to end up in that same category if we are going to deal with ease of proliferation of firearms in modern world. And we aren't going to get there by making it harder to access guns. Just the opposite.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

It's not the only solution I'm suggesting (I've already noted social and cultural aspects), and you're right in respect of planned incidents of mass murder, domestic terrorism. But a certain number of US mass murders are simply cases of people "going postal" and not planned in any way; these are the kinds of events enabled by firearms first and foremost. Restrictions on firearm sale, more joined-up revocation processes and registration many not prevent people who decide to kill a large number of victims and meticulously plan such an attack, but they may prevent someone with a history of violent or disturbed behaviour suddenly deciding to grab a handgun and go shoot up his local shopping mall. Will that person then use another weapon? Possibly, but I don't believe that factors other than the ease of access to high powered weapons can satisfactorily explained the vast gulf in mass casualtybevents between the US and elsewhere in the developed world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Cases of unplanned shootings typically have roughly the same casualty rates as cases of mass stabbings in Asia. Enacting restrictive policies to save lives of maybe a dozen people per year makes no sense. I know it may sound cold, but it's neither economically sensible, nor is it worth surrendering liberties over. There has to be a good reason to pass a law that reduces any freedom, and this just isn't it.

 

Further, the problem is that public doesn't get enraged over these 4-5 fatalities incidents. They get enraged over events such as these in Orlando. And these are clearly planned and are typically committed with firearms obtained illegally already. I don't see any gun control legislature making a dent on these. On the other hand, these shooters have frequently been under observation of Police and other agencies, which presents a much better opportunity to prevent the crimes. Such as, for example, if we had accessible psychiatric healthcare which these individuals can be directed to at the first signs of trouble. But even that wouldn't be economical in and of itself. Rather, it's something we desperately need anyways, and since such shootings seem to attract so much attention, I would be far happier if this is where our efforts went.

 

Now, if we add up firearm fatalities from all the sources, the number becomes significant and, frankly, embarrassing for a first world nation. We should do something about these. But here, again, I don't think gun control is going to cut it. We have two main categories. Accidental shootings and criminal activity. Later is simple. Given how easy it is to manufacture ghost guns now, homicides will simply be some fraction of crime. All we can do is reduce crime rates. These are also kind of high for first world, by the way, which is the first signal that it's a socioeconomic problem first and foremost.

 

Accidents are a more interesting case. On one hand, increasing requirements for gun ownership will reduce the rate at which new guns make it into households. On another, there are a lot of households with guns already. It will take time to make a difference. In the meantime, you're only helping reinforce the status of the gun as something forbidden, which just makes them more coveted by these who shouldn't be using them. Especially teens. So in short term, you are likely to cause the accidental shootings to go up, and in the long term, it's not clear which tendency will win out. What we really should be trying is making guns seem mundane. And there is no easier way to do that then educating public about it. As an experiment, I would suggest having mandatory firearm education in some schools. Experience tells me there is no better way to make teens hate something than turn it into homework.

 

We have a tendency in modern world to sacrifice freedom for illusion of safety. It is a very bad trend. Laws are important. Regulation is important. We regulate pharmaceuticals, vehicles, and power tools. We should, most certainly, regulate firearms. Existing regulations, however, are sufficient. In some states, they are already excessive. There are dumb loopholes in some of these laws, and these should be revised. But that's not what current outcry is about. What we are seeing is another knee jerk reaction to another tragedy which will be used to place yet another set of restrictions which are going to make life difficult for lawful, responsible owners, and will do absolutely nothing to prevent another shooting like this or stop a single fire-arm related crime from occurring in all of the country. There is nothing but harm that will come from any change made as reaction to events in Orlando. We all need to start looking at the bigger picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Can you explain the claim that large mass casualty shooting events typically take place with firearms obtained illegally? I'm not sure that's accurate- Orlando involved a legally owned firearm; same with the Luby's Massacre, San Ysidro, Binghamton, Aurora, Geneva County, Virginia Tech, Charles Whitman. Other instances have involved weapons purchased from the private market without background checks (Columbine) or stolen from the family home. I wouldn't consider any of these illegally obtained except the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Purely anecdotal, based on incidences I've bothered to look into in the past. I don't know the actual statistic, so if I'm wrong on that, I'll retract it. But the point stands that both illegal and legal unregistered firearms are easy to obtain already and will only be easier to obtain. If I can download and 3D print a receiver, as I have done, and given ability to purchase other parts on eBay, the legal barrier for obtaining an unregistered firearm is precisely zero. Even if we can assume that average shooter doesn't have sophistication to download the correct software and then follow YouTube instructions on putting the rifle together, there are plenty of people to sell them the rifle who do.

 

Even if the majority of the guns have been obtained legally, I see no indication that number of shootings will go down if they have to be acquired illegally. There is no way to control this with current laws, and there is no trivial way to change the laws to make an iota of difference. If you think you have an idea how to reduce access to ghost guns in US, I'd be very interested in hearing it. Right now, the cost of entry is $700 3D printer from Best Buy and internet access.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

I think we can do some things that will lower the overall rate of firearms crime. For example, much of the guns we see on the street in Chicago, Baltimore, New York, etc come up from southern states, mostly Georgia where there is little regulation and the gun show loophole is prevalent. If we can tighten those a bit and eliminate that gun show loophole, it's very hard to argue that you won't see some dent in the gun crime rate.

 

As for this particular incident, I'm inclined to agree with K2 as I said in the other topic. this guy had an armed security guard license on top of already possing a firearm permit. He pretty much had every single little legal requirement you can possibly place and still got a weapon. I'm not seeing much that could've stopped this.

 

And another thing to quickly mention, this nonsense that the FBI failed here is laughable. The same people criticizing the FBI are the same ones that would be freaking out protesting if they gave the FBI the power to literally deny constitutional rights to people they open an investigation on once.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

I think we can do some things that will lower the overall rate of firearms crime. For example, much of the guns we see on the street in Chicago, Baltimore, New York, etc come up from southern states, mostly Georgia where there is little regulation and the gun show loophole is prevalent. If we can tighten those a bit and eliminate that gun show loophole, it's very hard to argue that you won't see some dent in the gun crime rate.

I'm on board with closing gun show loopholes. This can have some short-term impact on gun crime, and even if not, it's worth it just to make our laws more self-consistent. There is nothing worse than a law that you cannot enforce. It does no good and it only makes your legal system into a joke.

 

I also wouldn't oppose sane regulation, like background checks on ammo purchase. It's a minor hassle for law-abiding citizens, and while ammo is easy enough to make or get illegally, the fact that you'd need a lot of it to do serious damage means you are that much more likely to raise some flags along the way.

 

And we see proposals for such reasonable laws, and some of them are being shot down thanks to NRA support, which I think is bad PR for them and the reason I'm not going to become a member. On the other hand, majority of laws being proposed are either unenforceable, like ghost gun regulation, or wouldn't do much good, like removable magazine laws, because people will simply find new workarounds. Laws like that are bad for everybody, and these are the things that keep getting introduced after each major shooting.

 

The latest packet of laws that passed through CA senate contains one sane law on ammo purchase and then about a dozen of ones that are going to just make things worse. Including yet another attempt to ban bullet buttons. How the hell are we supposed to get good firearm regulation when people writing up these laws don't bother thinking one step ahead on what these laws will actually introduce?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrownBear

Probably an oversimplification, but the US' fixation on guns seems to border on mental illness. I just can't begin to fathom some people's mind sets.

The fact that despite mass shootings every week across the country you can still go an pick up a box fresh assault rifle is just pure madness.

 

I guess it's a hard topic now as introducing gun laws similar to UK or AU would be impossible now. Something must be done though, it's just not acceptable to maintain this level of violence.

 

I genuinely just don't understand the mind set of people who want their country to be overflowing with high powered, modern weaponry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

The fact that despite mass shootings every week across the country you can still go an pick up a box fresh assault rifle is just pure madness.

Hundreds of thousands of people die in car crashes every year, yet you can go and just pick up a high-powered sports car with no problems. Does that bother you? Your conclusion does not follow.

 

Yes, US has horrible gun culture. Yes, it causes many deaths. But gun availability is not the cause of the problem. It's just another symptom. And making it harder to purchase a gun legally will do absolutely nothing to reduce the fatalities. Just like correct solution to car fatalities isn't a ban on sports cars. It's stricter licensing requirements and better enforcement of traffic laws.

 

It was silly to respond to gun violence with bans and restrictions in the past. It is idiotic now when anybody can 3D print the parts that make a difference between assault rifle and a hunting rifle.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

The fact that despite mass shootings every week across the country you can still go an pick up a box fresh assault rifle is just pure madness.

Hundreds of thousands of people die in car crashes every year, yet you can go and just pick up a high-powered sports car with no problems. Does that bother you? Your conclusion does not follow.There is at least a coherent licencing process for vehicles, and driving one on the road does require you to have demonstrated a minimum level of competence...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abel.

Yes, but in the US it's an absolutely standard thing. Kids do driver's ed in school and get their license at 16; in the UK it's harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

There is at least a coherent licencing process for vehicles, and driving one on the road does require you to have demonstrated a minimum level of competence...

I'm totally on board with requiring a safety course and a background check for firearms licensing. It's not strictly enforceable, so I doubt it will do anything to our crime rates, but it will get all the law-abiding gun-owners to get some training, and that will cut down on accidental deaths. Can't possibly be a bad thing.

 

Problem is, it's never presented that way in US politics. Standard response is to try and eliminate certain gun types from circulation. And that's a dumb way to go about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrownBear

I can't see the correlation to be honest. Cars are vehicles which have many practical uses. Guns are military hardware, with no purpose but to put down enemies.

 

I understand it's not the root cause, but how can you say that having ridiculously available heavy weaponry doesn't affect it. Like what good is a background check, when some guy can go in with a clean record, buy a few automatic weapons and then sell them to criminals.

 

The availability of guns in the US is also destroying South America. Mexico is overrun with guns and gun crime, but there is only one legal gun shop in Mexico.

 

Laws aren't the be all and end all, but there are countless examples all over the world that show that have less legally available guns relates to less gun crime.

 

Of course, the criminal underworld will have access to guns no matter what, but I'm sure it'd still be reduced with less guns on the market. However, if tighter gun laws could stop little Timmy picking up his dads assault rifle from under his bed and spraying up a mall, then surely that is a good result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Laws aren't the be all and end all, but there are countless examples all over the world that show that have less legally available guns relates to less gun crime.

Actually, if you make a plot of gun availability against just about any gun violence stat, you'll see a mess of points with no correlation whatsoever. The country second after US in gun ownership is Switzerland, where it's not only legal, but mandatory for a good chunk of population to own fully automatic rifles. These are actual weapons of war, and not the lookalikes you can buy in US. It's also the country with one of the fewest gun crimes. Or crime in general. Of course, there, gun ownership comes with mandatory training as part of the military reserve. And that makes a whole lot of difference.

 

And while US certainly hasn't been making gun trafficking problem for Mexico easier, it's actually a good example of what's going to happen in US if you ban guns. They aren't going to go away. We don't just have weapons here. We have gunsmiths. A huge number of licensed gunsmiths who make firearms and sell them legally. If firearms are banned, a whole mess of them will go underground. Who do you think they are going to sell weapons to? Sure, you can make an argument that you can wean it out over time, rather than clamping down on it instantly. But as I've pointed out again and again in this thread, it's entirely too late for that. The entry level for making a firearm in United States is not years of training and expensive equipment. It's a $700 3D printer from Best Buy and ability to download an .stl file. Everything you cannot 3D print you can pick up from a hardware store.

 

So if we agree that availability isn't the root cause, and given that fighting gun availability, at least for criminals, in US is an impossible task at this point, then why don't we try to focus on options that might actually work instead of doing the easy thing, banning scary-looking guns, which will accomplish nothing?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

I can't see the correlation to be honest. Cars are vehicles which have many practical uses. Guns are military hardware, with no purpose but to put down enemies.

 

I understand it's not the root cause, but how can you say that having ridiculously available heavy weaponry doesn't affect it. Like what good is a background check, when some guy can go in with a clean record, buy a few automatic weapons and then sell them to criminals.

 

The availability of guns in the US is also destroying South America. Mexico is overrun with guns and gun crime, but there is only one legal gun shop in Mexico.

 

Laws aren't the be all and end all, but there are countless examples all over the world that show that have less legally available guns relates to less gun crime.

 

Of course, the criminal underworld will have access to guns no matter what, but I'm sure it'd still be reduced with less guns on the market. However, if tighter gun laws could stop little Timmy picking up his dads assault rifle from under his bed and spraying up a mall, then surely that is a good result.

 

"assault rifles" in mass shootings...? You are glossing over the much of the actual factors in US gun violence.

 

 

And the US drug policy has way more to do with the issue of US-exported gun violence in the Americas than anything else.

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

 

Laws aren't the be all and end all, but there are countless examples all over the world that show that have less legally available guns relates to less gun crime.

Actually, if you make a plot of gun availability against just about any gun violence stat, you'll see a mess of points with no correlation whatsoever. The country second after US in gun ownership is Switzerland, where it's not only legal, but mandatory for a good chunk of population to own fully automatic rifles. These are actual weapons of war, and not the lookalikes you can buy in US. It's also the country with one of the fewest gun crimes. Or crime in general. Of course, there, gun ownership comes with mandatory training as part of the military reserve. And that makes a whole lot of difference.And while US certainly hasn't been making gun trafficking problem for Mexico easier, it's actually a good example of what's going to happen in US if you ban guns. They aren't going to go away. We don't just have weapons here. We have gunsmiths. A huge number of licensed gunsmiths who make firearms and sell them legally. If firearms are banned, a whole mess of them will go underground. Who do you think they are going to sell weapons to? Sure, you can make an argument that you can wean it out over time, rather than clamping down on it instantly. But as I've pointed out again and again in this thread, it's entirely too late for that. The entry level for making a firearm in United States is not years of training and expensive equipment. It's a $700 3D printer from Best Buy and ability to download an .stl file. Everything you cannot 3D print you can pick up from a hardware store.So if we agree that availability isn't the root cause, and given that fighting gun availability, at least for criminals, in US is an impossible task at this point, then why don't we try to focus on options that might actually work instead of doing the easy thing, banning scary-looking guns, which will accomplish nothing?

There's also things like the "liberator" pistol which are made entirely of plastic, and of course "zip" guns have been around forevernl. Plus when it comes to the skill and expertise it would require to make am assault rifle, there's a thread somewhere online where a guy makes a functioning Ak-47 by stamping and bending the metal from a shovel.

 

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning!

 

All he needed to buy wad the barrel.

 

I wonder what effect treating barrels as individually regulated items would have, ammunition too. People can print or machine any kind of lower or receiver they want, but the barrel and amount that goes through it are regulated. Barrels are a lot harder to manufacture and pretty much the most integral part of a rifle. Now smooth bore rifle, shotguns, etc. are another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

I wonder what effect treating barrels as individually regulated items would have, ammunition too. People can print or machine any kind of lower or receiver they want, but the barrel and amount that goes through it are regulated. Barrels are a lot harder to manufacture and pretty much the most integral part of a rifle. Now smooth bore rifle, shotguns, etc. are another matter.

I was thinking about the same thing earlier. Reason receiver is the registered part of the gun is mostly historical. Barrel used to be considered a part subject to wear and replacement. And if barrels were subject to registration from the start, I think we'd be in better shape. At least for a while.

 

Unfortunately, while rifled barrel is the hardest part to manufacture by an amateur, there are three primary factors preventing registration of barrels from being effective. First, they can still be manufactured with the right equipment. A lot of it is already out there in hands of gunsmiths, and more of it would be easy to introduce if this became illegal. Second, there is a huge number of rifled barrels out there already. Somewhere between 200 and 300 million of them. If even just 1% of them goes rogue when you pass laws requiring registration, that's enough to supply everyone who wants to make an illegal ghost gun in the country with plenty left over for export.

 

Finally, while smooth bore is sh*t for long range and conventional ammo, if all you really want is cut down crowds of people, flechette rounds fired from smooth bore is all you really need. And for just about every other use, sabot and slugs are rounds for you. Unless you are planning to engage at distances of over 100 yards, rifling simply isn't critical. And a smooth bore is a just a thick pipe.

 

Long term, even these limitations won't hold. Metal sinthering techniques are rapidly becoming affordable. And who knows what we'll see from advanced polymers and ceramics. A decade ago, it was hard to picture a cheap consumer 3D printer that can handle a good receiver. In another decade, we are likely to see models that can handle a barrel. At that point, we're totally screwed on gun control.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Craigsters

r0V4obi.jpg

 

https://www.statista.com/chart/783/number-of-gun-shops-in-the-united-states/

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I always thought this was a tall tale and wasn't true or to be taken seriously

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daz

 

I think we can do some things that will lower the overall rate of firearms crime. For example, much of the guns we see on the street in Chicago, Baltimore, New York, etc come up from southern states, mostly Georgia where there is little regulation and the gun show loophole is prevalent. If we can tighten those a bit and eliminate that gun show loophole, it's very hard to argue that you won't see some dent in the gun crime rate.

I'm on board with closing gun show loopholes. This can have some short-term impact on gun crime, and even if not, it's worth it just to make our laws more self-consistent. There is nothing worse than a law that you cannot enforce. It does no good and it only makes your legal system into a joke.

 

I also wouldn't oppose sane regulation, like background checks on ammo purchase. It's a minor hassle for law-abiding citizens, and while ammo is easy enough to make or get illegally, the fact that you'd need a lot of it to do serious damage means you are that much more likely to raise some flags along the way

Aside from maybe getting ammo and guns out of basic all goods stores like walmart would be a handy option, but they can obviously claim they are being treated unfairly just because of the amount of stores they have, some people in rural areas may only have that store to get it from by driving out the competition. And I really think it should be harder to get your first gun, but once you are an avid shooter it should be easier for you and not harder to continue to enjoy your sport.

 

I genuinely just don't understand the mind set of people who want their country to be overflowing with high powered, modern weaponry.

Because millions of people enjoy them, and enjoy them safely. There is a high demand for them and the overwhelming mass of them are never misused. It is an ever growing market and great for the economy and completely necessary for hunting and vermin destruction. It doesn't matter how modern the gun is, it is just an evolution of a design. There is no reason to force yourself to buy a rifle with a wooden stock just to make people feel better. Many action types and materials are outdated and obsolete. It shouldn't be anyone's god damn business what I do with my guns if it isn't hurting anyone.

 

I can't see the correlation to be honest. Cars are vehicles which have many practical uses. Guns are military hardware, with no purpose but to put down enemies.

 

I understand it's not the root cause, but how can you say that having ridiculously available heavy weaponry doesn't affect it. Like what good is a background check, when some guy can go in with a clean record, buy a few automatic weapons and then sell them to criminals.

 

The availability of guns in the US is also destroying South America. Mexico is overrun with guns and gun crime, but there is only one legal gun shop in Mexico.

 

Laws aren't the be all and end all, but there are countless examples all over the world that show that have less legally available guns relates to less gun crime.

 

Of course, the criminal underworld will have access to guns no matter what, but I'm sure it'd still be reduced with less guns on the market. However, if tighter gun laws could stop little Timmy picking up his dads assault rifle from under his bed and spraying up a mall, then surely that is a good result.

 

Ugh.

 

Guns aren't military hardware with no purpose than to put down enemies. They have vastly large applications of use that will ALWAYS be required, even during an all out ban of weapons. They will always exist in the civilian population in some form of another. And that is not the problem. Even in the UK this is the same.

 

It is slightly different here in that we aren't able to have them by right, only by privilege, and you have to prove a reason for it. But generally anyone can have a shotgun with little to no effort, but much harder with rifles. The main issue the US has is that because they are allowed them by birthright and for self defense which the UK doesn't allow. It then opens up a whole other reasoning for stopping guns getting into the wrong hands.

 

If you do a background check and it comes back they have had depression and are still taking meds for it, do they deserve to lose their right to defend themselves, hunt or enjoy shooting sports just from a slightly elevated risk with no evidence? Or the whole thing about people on terrorist watch lists. It sounds stupidly obvious we should be stopping people on those lists getting hold of guns. But maybe it isn't that simple? What if you are a law abiding muslim, that just so happens to have a bit of a dodgy cousin that said some racist sh*t or said something dumb once and hes on a watch list, and the law abiding guy now can't have firearms.

 

It is just a completely different ballgame with the US, they have had guns for decades and always had available the most modern technology that the military has had at the time. Obviously forcing everyone who cares enough about gun ownership to register to get a license would be a good thing, but that doesn't account for all the guns already out there, that someone could find in an attic and nobody knows about. There will always be guns out there regardless of whatever laws are put in place now. It really is not a proper solution and all you do is harm peoples rights they think they have, if that is right or not. It's hard to flat out say they no longer have a right even when not having done anything wrong. It happens in the UK all the time. Just a simple domestic dispute with a bad outcome, even if you didn't do anything wrong but your wife says you hit her, you can have that right taken from you. And it sucks a big one for people heavily involved in shooting sports, and vermin control, that is all they have, that is their livelihood and their lifestyle taken away forever.

 

 

The overall point here is if you take the self defense and the right to own a gun out of the equation, the best way would be to (from now on) sign up for a license which you have to take a safety course, a shooting course to show you can actually hit what you aim at and that you aren't reckless, and that you have a decent interest and will take it seriously. It would be also nice to maybe fine people (not arrest or revoke) for storing guns improperly. Make it easier for people already with licenses to continue to buy guns, ammo, and enjoy their hobby without giving them bullsh*t wait times and hoops to jump through just for asking for a metal tube with baffles in, or to get another gun despite the fact they may already have 100 guns. Why should it matter after that?

 

But the problem there is in the US they are allowed them for self defense. So it isn't practical to be forced to always store guns in safes. They may need them under a bed and even loaded. Which causes safety issues. As well as the ability for them to be stolen. And peoples rights to defend themselves. So that is the main hurdle there. We want to encourage safe sensible people to enjoy shooting, while discouraging people who just want one for the sake of it and will be dangerous with it. But neither of those fall into categories of mass shooters or terrorists. Like already mentioned, if the Orlando shooter had all the legal paperwork then honestly what is the f*cking point in any of the legislation? You are more likely to be shot by a police officer than a mass shooter at this point. And these are people that the public trust with their lives and trust to carry a gun, and you are telling me people are worried about concealed carry holders that go through the same checks the police do? You can gtfo with that one.

 

 

The media are partly to blame, these type of horrific shootings never generally circled round the world like they do now. It makes it more apparent and the only thing you know about guns other than police and military use is mad gun owners going nuts. And it is an awful stereotype that needs to be removed from memory. If the media outlets would not capitalize on these tragedies and actually never show the shooters face or any info on them, and just stick to the base facts and focus on the good things people do to help each other after the events it would stop these disturbed people from getting anti-hero glory from their selfish suicide act they hope will give them attention. Stop giving them attention.

 

 

 

There is no easy answer here, and any gun legislation at this point due to it's history is easy to just say no to than actually actively agree something is for the good because we have always been fisted up the ass with bullsh*t legislation.

 

The UK lost all it's semi automatic rifles higher than .22 rimfire and all pistols just because of 2 separate incidents.

 

If you ban something anytime it gets abused there would not be a single man made thing left in the world.

Edited by Daz
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MadHammerThorsteen

r0V4obi.jpg

 

https://www.statista.com/chart/783/number-of-gun-shops-in-the-united-states/

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I always thought this was a tall tale and wasn't true or to be taken seriously

 

Not that that means anything. Most grocery stores tend to serve entire regions and are corporate chains. On the other hand, gun shops tend to be local brick & mortars (no pun intended). I wonder what the numbers on banks are, or shoe stores. There are close to 10 of those in my regional mall alone. But if we're going to keep it to food vs guns, let's just remember that there are restaurants, diners, pubs, and fastfood joints everywhere. It's a really arbitrary comparison that means absolutely f*cking nothing.

 

I think there's probably a lot more legislation involved in owning a gunshop that makes building a nation- or region-serving corporate chain much more prohibitive, so a lot of people think, "he can have that corner, but if Imset up on this one, I'll get all of the customers on this side."

 

Furthermore, grocery stores and fastfood joints spend lots of money on market research for strategic placement precisely so that they're not wasting their own money putting up more fronts than is good for profit margins. Simply, I just don't think there's simply anywhere near as such organization and efficiency in the placement of gun shops.

Edited by Majesty Dreamworth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrownBear

 

The media are partly to blame, these type of horrific shootings never generally circled round the world like they do now. It makes it more apparent and the only thing you know about guns other than police and military use is mad gun owners going nuts. And it is an awful stereotype that needs to be removed from memory. If the media outlets would not capitalize on these tragedies and actually never show the shooters face or any info on them, and just stick to the base facts and focus on the good things people do to help each other after the events it would stop these disturbed people from getting anti-hero glory from their selfish suicide act they hope will give them attention. Stop giving them attention.

 

I understand where you're coming from completely . My issue is more with the endemic gun culture that exists in the US, than practical use of guns.

I don't understand how in a modern, developed country it is considered a good idea for people to legally walk around with guns for self defence, I truly don't.

Even the self defence argument itself is pretty ludicrous, I mean, there would be no need to defend yourself with guns if guns weren't commonplace. I understand that's not an argument for banning guns, but how can that be argued against?

I understand there are many uses for guns, but don't give me that about banning every man made thing. I'm not one for that sort of Nanny State mentality, but guns are a different matter, now matter how many uses there are, at the end of the day they are designed to kill.

I can't see any argument against gun ownership in the UK either, I think very few people would see it as a breach upon their freedom. It's just completely unnecessary to have guns here, the effects have been pretty much all positive. Gun use is so rare in the UK that criminals end up using converted replicas and antiques.

Just because someone is trained and responsible with a firearm, doesn't mean he's not going to turn it on his wife or his neighbour. Criminal record checks don't stop someone from buying weapons and selling them to criminals.

 

I don't think it's particularly fair to accuse me of giving them attention, this is a topic about gun control, after all.

 

I do definitely agree with some of your points and I'm not trying to offer any solutions, of course banning guns is essentially redundant now in the US with so many in circulation; I'm just putting out my opinion on a situation I find in many ways to be downright sickening. From what I gathered, your views on the situation are pretty reasonable, but to me I can't see how the argument of guns being fun and useful can stand up against the facts of extreme gun violence in the US.

Edited by BrownBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MadHammerThorsteen

 

 

The media are partly to blame, these type of horrific shootings never generally circled round the world like they do now. It makes it more apparent and the only thing you know about guns other than police and military use is mad gun owners going nuts. And it is an awful stereotype that needs to be removed from memory. If the media outlets would not capitalize on these tragedies and actually never show the shooters face or any info on them, and just stick to the base facts and focus on the good things people do to help each other after the events it would stop these disturbed people from getting anti-hero glory from their selfish suicide act they hope will give them attention. Stop giving them attention.

 

I understand where you're coming from completely . My issue is more with the endemic gun culture that exists in the US, than practical use of guns.

I don't understand how in a modern, developed country it is considered a good idea for people to legally walk around with guns for self defence, I truly don't.

Even the self defence argument itself is pretty ludicrous, I mean, there would be no need to defend yourself with guns if guns weren't commonplace. I understand that's not an argument for banning guns, but how can that be argued against?

I understand there are many uses for guns, but don't give me that about banning every man made thing. I'm not one for that sort of Nanny State mentality, but guns are a different matter, now matter how many uses there are, at the end of the day they are designed to kill.

I can't see any argument against gun ownership in the UK either, I think very few people would see it as a breach upon their freedom. It's just completely unnecessary to have guns here, the effects have been pretty much all positive. Gun use is so rare in the UK that criminals end up using converted replicas and antiques.

Just because someone is trained and responsible with a firearm, doesn't mean he's not going to turn it on his wife or his neighbour. Criminal record checks don't stop someone from buying weapons and selling them to criminals.

 

I don't think it's particularly fair to accuse me of giving them attention, this is a topic about gun control, after all.

 

I do definitely agree with some of your points and I'm not trying to offer any solutions, of course banning guns is essentially redundant now in the US with so many in circulation; I'm just putting out my opinion on a situation I find in many ways to be downright sickening. From what I gathered, your views on the situation are pretty reasonable, but to me I can't see how the argument of guns being fun and useful can stand up against the facts of extreme gun violence in the US.

 

Despite the "endemic" gun culture, ownership, or at least self-reported ownership has steadily declined since the 70s. It now fluctuates between 30% and 40% of the population, but leans more toward the low end of that. But if we take the high number, 40%, at a population of 324m, that means 129.6m US citizens own guns--likely more. About 13,286 people were killed with a firearm in 2015. So of the total self-reported gun owners, assuming largely and arbitrarily that all of these murders come from the same pool of people and that each gun individual death is linked to a different murderer, gun violence is committed at a max high end estimate of 0.01% of all gun owners.

 

I think what we have, though, is not a culture of gun violence. Just a culture of violence. Even so, it's not a terribly high rate compared to a lot of countries. I don't know what the gun murder-to-total murder rate is here, but I suspect it would be high, naturally because a gun is seen as the quickest and deadliest weapon. If we didn't have guns, sharps would see the highest use, and so on regressively to obsidian rocks.

 

I think the argument that gun control means no need to personally carry a gun is also about as ridiculous as the idea that everyone needs to carry a gun for commonplace self-defense. At that point, you might as well be arguing that if we outlawed martial arts, you wouldn't need to know self-defense. It's based on the idea that the state, as parens patriae, can solve all of our woes through legislation. It's a slippery slope to a police state, not on the basis of guns, but on the basis of an assumption that the state knows better, and that it can and should take care of everything.

 

Gun ownership should be fought for on two grounds and two grounds only: (A) I want it because it's cool. (B) If we need to mobilize as a group against a large threat to our community and the police or military cannot or will not mobilize, at least we have the guns. In the latter, the chances are miniscule, but they're not nonexistent. When spears were the most dangerous form of tribal defense, we used those. When flintlock rifles were the most dangerous form of community defense, we used those. And so on.

 

As to the rarity of gun use in the UK, I think we have to view it with a bit of context. 2011 saw a rate of 0.06 gun murders to the hundred-thousand people, whereas the US saw 3.43. It seems like a 50-time jump that shows that the legality of guns contributes unequivocally to gun violence. However, the UK has 6.6 guns to every hundred persons, whereas the US has 112.6 guns to the hundred. This means there is a UK gun murder-to-gun rate of 0.0009%, and a US gun violence-to-gun rate of 0.003%. Still just over a 3-time jump, but not too terribly unreasonable for such small percentages in relation to such large ownership, especially considering how much more tightly controlled gun ownership is in the UK.

 

The rate difference cannot, I suspect, be entirely accounted for through national attitudes toward guns. South Korea has, beyond all doubt, the strictest gun control in the developed world. It's gun murder rate is 0.02 to the hundred-thousand people, which again, seems to demonstrate that gun control unequivocally means less death. But when you consider that there are 1.1 guns to every hundred people, the gun murder-to-gun rate is 0.0018%. That's double the gun murder-to-gun rate of the UK. But as I say, it's not too terribly significant in either when you consider just how small those numbers are.

Edited by Majesty Dreamworth
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Despite the "endemic" gun culture, ownership, or at least self-reported ownership has steadily declined since the 70s. It now fluctuates between 30% and 40% of the population, but leans more toward the low end of that. But if we take the high number, 40%, at a population of 324m, that means 129.6m US citizens own guns--likely more. About 13,286 people were killed with a firearm in 2015. So of the total self-reported gun owners, assuming largely and arbitrarily that all of these murders come from the same pool of people and that each gun individual death is linked to a different murderer, gun violence is committed at a max high end estimate of 0.01% of all gun owners.

As of 2015, approximately 41% of US households have at least one gun in their possession, yet there are more legally owned firearms in the US than there are citizens. It can therefore be inferred that most firearm-owning households possess multiple firearms, but that's largely a moot point. 13,286 people in the US in 2015 died as a result of either accidental firearm discharges or intentional shootings. Approximately double that committed suicide with a firearm. If you want to look at the outright death rate attributed to US firearm ownership, it seems only sensible to include suicides too. And that's 0.01% of gun owners per year, not outright. And that's firearm fatalities alone, not "acts of violence". In 2013, which is the only year I've got statistics for, there were nearly five times as many non-fatal shootings as fatal ones.

 

In fact, taking 2013's firearm statistics, including suicides and injuries and applying the same statistics above, the outright number of citizens killed or injured by a firearm is 105,888, and the percentage per annum of firearm owners, using your 129.6m totai, is 0.08%. Let's put it another way; 95% of American households own at least one car, and approximately 32,000 per year die in vehicle related accidents. Circa 40% of US households own at least one firearm, and 13,000 per year die in shooting accidents or intentional firearm homicides. Broadly, the proportion of firearm owners identified using your metric per year killed in shootings is similar to the proportion of vehicle owners killed in road traffic accidents.

 

The issue here is that statistical reductionism entirely misses the point. The fact that the percentage of the US population killed per annum in shooting is very low disguises the fact it's dramatically, massively higher than elsewhere in the developed world. Firearms comprise circa 60% of all homicides in the US, and very near all multiple homicides. As a society the US does have a cultural propensity towards violence, but to dismiss the outright firearm death statistics as inconsequential sort of misses the point; these issues are simply not present in other developed nations regardless of the levels of firearm ownership. Serbia, which has firearm ownership rates of 75.6 per 100 citizens (ranking second to the US) and which implements a permit- and registration-based system, has an annual firearm-related death rate of 3.49 per 100,000 citizens (2012), compared to 10.54 (2014) for the US. Cyprus, which has a firearm ownership rate of 36.4 per 100,000 citizens, has a annual firearm-related death rate of approximately 1.87 per 100,000 citizens. Sweden, which has firearm ownerships rates of 31.6 per 100 citizens, has a firearm-related death rate of 1.47 per 100,000 citizens (2010).

 

The issue in the US isn't the proliferation, it's the surrounding culture.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.