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. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    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

Dingdongs

He has a cursory understanding of Islam at best and his criticisms of it are not really grounded in factual basis. There's something to be said for (As I've argued on this forum many times) the fact that way too many Muslims follow hateful, backward ideology (wahhabis/salafis) and that that is a problem that manifests itself into terrorism and other issues... but this idea that he argues that all of it stems from the Quran and from Islam itself as a wide overarching religion is just not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

once again you're being disingenuous.

I don't think Maher ever said that "all of it" stems from their religious dogma and nothing else.... but to pretend that their religious dogma doesn't have anything to do with it is absurdly incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DragonpokeZ

You guys don't seem to see the other side of the argument. Even if you ban guns, people can still get them from the black market. It doesn't matter if we have tighter gun controls, shootouts still can and will happen, but this time no one will be carrying a gun to try and stop the situtation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

once again you're being disingenuous.

I don't think Maher ever said that "all of it" stems from their religious dogma and nothing else.... but to pretend that their religious dogma doesn't have anything to do with it is absurdly incorrect.

It sounds that way to me from listening to his initial video with Ben Affleck (who was stupid as well) and listening to other ones on it. He doesn't mention the distinctions within schools of Islam because he frankly doesn't know anything about them and he does paint a broad brush on all Muslims. And again, I'm no apologist for Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

Irviding, if that's your impression of Bill, it's not accurate.
that was one conversation and they were mostly just using the moment to jump on Affleck. it was certainly not the most lengthy discussion they've ever had on the subject. Maher knows more than he lets on.

You guys don't seem to see the other side of the argument. Even if you ban guns, people can still get them from the black market. It doesn't matter if we have tighter gun controls, shootouts still can and will happen, but this time no one will be carrying a gun to try and stop the situtation

this is a fairly lengthy topic; I dunno if you noticed.

it's that not that we don't "see" that side of the argument.
it's that this "side" has already been brought up and dealt with repeatedly. clearly you cannot buy a gun within Chicago city limits, yet clearly Chicago has a homicide rate that would make Syria blush.

I think it's pretty evident that the United States is the distinctive factor in the equation.
culture and proliferation are the issues at hand; not guns themselves and not even really mental illness. these so-called mentally ill mass shooters account for such a small percentage of the fatalities every year. it's almost entirely the fault of culture and proliferation. we have yet to truly face down the notion that Guns and the image of Vigilante Justice are akin to religious icons and sacred belief in this country.

Gun = God

guns solve all problems.
they're everywhere.

this speaks as much to the ignorant youth wanna-be gangbanger as it does the sociopath who finally snaps or the passion-stricken husband who catches his wife cheating. it speaks equally to the suicidal and the hopeless.

Edited by El Diablo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

If you know of videos where he goes into great length about Islam and stuff I would be all ears to watch srs. If there are none and we just assuming he knows more, do you have some basis?

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

Bill Maher has never said anything of value about anything ever. There is no nuance to his arguments. He's a failed stand-up comedian with a couple of failed TV shows. His fanbase consists of aging liberals and white dudebro college students. He's like the Hugh Heffner of sh*t no one cares about. He is syphilis personified. If you like Bill Maher, you're a terrorist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

lol topic about Bill Maher takes a turn for the gun control

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

 

Kinda ironic that Chicago is #1 at gun control here in the states but has the the most gun violence in America?

It's not really irony, it's simple logic.

Firstly, I don't think your statement here is factually accurate. Chicago doesn't even appear on the list of the 100 US cities with the highest violent crime rates per capita (stats here), Chicago proper doesn't rank in the top 100 US cities for murder rates per capita (stats here) though two of its neighbourhoods are ranked between 10th and 20th, and Illinois ranks 14th for firearm deaths by state and 22nd for firearm deaths per capita by state.

Chicago may be a city which sees higher levels of firearm related violence than other urban areas of a similar size in the US, but there are other factors which influence that. A prohibition on gun shops inside the city borders is not really an example of "gun control" given that the city does not have any more stringent regulation of possession of weapons that elsewhere in the state, and neighbouring counties do not ban gun shops. Add to that endemic problems with organised crime...

Then you have to take a look at why the gun shop ban was instigated- it was a response to exceedingly high levels of firearm-enabled crime. Has it worked at reducing that crime? To be frank, no it hasn't, but pretending that the ban is a cause of the crime rather than the effect of it is spectacularly disingenuous.

Im sick and tired of cops and criminals only having guns and the common tax payer like us are screwed over.

Thing is, though, they aren't. Even in states with fairly stringent regulations on legal market firearm purchases, grey market, private-sale guns are essentially unregulated. Pretty much the only time private purchasers buying from individual sellers will ever be exposed to any legislation, state or federal, that even resembles gun "control" is when they either apply for a concealed or open carry permit or if they go through the judicial system.

There is a damn good reason in the constitution that is says "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

There was a good reason the constitution enshrined the right to bear arms...in 1791. The same reason there was a good reason for enshrining the right to raise militias in 1791, which isn't something we see very much of, is it?

It's also worth noting that the Supreme Court has consistently said that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and does not prohibit regulation of firearms at the whims of either federal government or states. For a group of people who bang on about constitutional rights, many deregulation proponents lack any contextual understanding of the constitution or any coherent knowledge of the Supreme Court's role in interpreting it.

Additionally, if we do have these gun free zones, it is only going to provoke weirdo's into targeting those places. Why is that? Simple, it is because they have the upper hand...

This is a "chicken little" fallacy; shootings don't disproportionately target explicitly gun-free zones so the notion that limiting these zones would reduce shooting incidents is illogical. Additionally, when mass shooting incidents do occur in zones permitting concealed or open carry, the frequency with which armed citizens have actually responded to an event let alone contributed to stopping one is so small as to be effectively nonexistent. Bystander Syndrome tends to stop armed people from actually responding anyway, so it's largely an exercise in futility from a practical standpoint.

If we were armed like we were intended to be

Are you saying here that numerous Supreme Courts have been wrong in their interpretation of the constitution but you're right?

Another silly argument is that "Oh how come other countries like the UK etc etc are fine without it" America is culturally different

The US is indeed culturally different; firearm violence is an endemic part of US culture that's worshipped with a practically religious furore. Consumption of violent media, music glorifying gang violence and the suchlike exists in many Western countries; many Western countries have similar problems with gang violence, though usually not on quite the same scale. The US suffers with poorer basic levels of mental heathcare, a higher disparity between rich and poor and a few other factors which influence the comparatively stratospheric firearm crime rates, but the biggest factors are simply that guns are incredibly easy to obtain for just about anyone, the notion that firearm ownership is an inalienable right regardless of behaviour or competency is basically ingrained into the US psyche, and very few people actually have any coherent training in safe use of weapons. The whole point in legislating on the issue is supposed to be to remove or dramatically limit access for the lowest common denominators whilst ensuring that law-abiding individuals capable of using weapons responsibly are completely unaffected. You look at the statistics for accidental firearm deaths in the US and tell me that, as a society, people don't need better understanding of weapon safety.

If liberals are trying to ban/limit the types of guns, only cops and criminals would have guns.

This is a straw man on two counts.

One, most "liberals" as you call them (I.E anyone not in the NRA's back pocket) don't actually want to ban guns at all, or limit the guns themselves. What they want to do is limit the accessibility of weapons to try and mitigate the huge number of "going postal" style murder committed by people who, for whatever reason, simply "snap". These murders effectively only occur because the individual in question has easy access to a firearm; they're far less prevalent in countries where firearm laws require a shooting to be premeditated (I.E separating ammunition and unloaded weapon). These kinds of murders outweigh instances of individuals legitimately shooting intruders or assailants in self-defence by a truly astronomical factor.

Two, several case studies where weapons have been subject to greater regulation in the wake of violent incidents have shown long-term drops in the level of gun violence. True, these cases are typically not directly relatable to the US case, but the "only cop and crims have guns" argument is largely nonsense if you actually look at the statistics of where criminals obtain firearms. The vast majority of guns used in violent incidents are grey or black-market weapons; grey-market ones being private purchases and black being generally stolen or trafficked. A crackdown on the private sales of guns will go some way to negating their availability; similarly more coherent rules on storing weapons make them harder to steal.

As an interesting aside, eight of the last fourteen mass shootings have involved legally-owned, shop-bought weapons to which the perpetrators had direct access, including several which were owned directly by them, so there's clearly a fundamental problem in the ability of US authorities to vet people.

-

As a further aside, I'm of the view that if more Americans were capable of extracting themselves from their societally induced groupthink and viewing the whole debate with a bit more objectivity there would be more coherent support for sensible measures to remediate some of the endemic issues.

I would say in terms of homicide in the US, there are more justifiable homicide cases than mass homicide cases, but overall criminal homicide in a traditional sense eclipses both. In other words, there are actually more people in the US shooting home invaders than there have been mass murder incidents, but the amount of times a citizen has defended their life or another's pales in comparison with a citizen has taken the life of another, or even when they haven taken their own life.

 

I think the part about private sales being a grey market is a good way to look at it. The issue is state vs federal laws, most states which do not allow private sales adopted those laws themselves. I wonder if any statistical correlation can be shown looking at private sale vs non private sale states in terms of these mass murder incidents.

 

Self Defense is one area this argument frequently comes back to. Gun violence in America is a real thing, and the fight-fire-with-fire approach is what I think ends up being the bottom line. Because we do have a lot of guns, criminals coming into our homes with them, and it breeds an inferiority complex in some. Others even if they are logical enough to know a security system beats a six shooter every time, they can't afford a 1000 dollar security system over a 100 dollar six shooter. Others are programmed to think the gun is more noble, more valid t, and jerk themselves off thinking about shooting home invaders, I can't estimate at all which I'd the most common of the groups but it's a diverse bunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I would say in terms of homicide in the US, there are more justifiable homicide cases than mass homicide cases, but overall criminal homicide in a traditional sense eclipses both.

I think you're probably right, but that's doesn't really say much as the boundaries for justifiable homicide in the US are laughable. It's basically permissible to kill an intruder during a home invasion regardless of actual, demonstrable threat in all something like 45 of 50 states because of Castle Doctrine laws. All you need to do is reasonably argue that there was a reasonable belief that a threat of violence existed, and case law suggests the mere act of someone breaking into a home constitutes enough to meet that criteria in some states. Just about anywhere else in the world, proportionality comes into the formula, but merely being on or inside someone else's property is often a justification for justifiable homicide and personally I think that's ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

I would say in terms of homicide in the US, there are more justifiable homicide cases than mass homicide cases, but overall criminal homicide in a traditional sense eclipses both.

I think you're probably right, but that's doesn't really say much as the boundaries for justifiable homicide in the US are laughable. It's basically permissible to kill an intruder during a home invasion regardless of actual, demonstrable threat in all something like 45 of 50 states because of Castle Doctrine laws. All you need to do is reasonably argue that there was a reasonable belief that a threat of violence existed, and case law suggests the mere act of someone breaking into a home constitutes enough to meet that criteria in some states. Just about anywhere else in the world, proportionality comes into the formula, but merely being on or inside someone else's property is often a justification for justifiable homicide and personally I think that's ridiculous.Well, you have to remember that there is a distinction in the majority of castle doctrine states. In my view, if an intruder actually enters your home, that is comes through your door and puts you and your family at risk, you should have every right to put them down. That's the standard in most states. That being said, where it comes to excess is in a lot of southern states where the castle doctrine extends to the entire property of the home, and also adds in "stand your ground". So, if an intruder enters your home, you point a gun at him, he turns around takes off running and you shoot him 10 times in the back in your front lawn, in many states that's permissible... it's not like that in all castle states. The stand your ground comes in in that it basically says even if the opponent is surrendering, if you were in an engagement with them at some point you have the right to use deadly force.

 

And again, I don't see how anyone could argue that shooting someone who enters your house, not just steps on your property, and isn't fleeing is wrong. Unless that is just an American idea...

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

 

I would say in terms of homicide in the US, there are more justifiable homicide cases than mass homicide cases, but overall criminal homicide in a traditional sense eclipses both.

I think you're probably right, but that's doesn't really say much as the boundaries for justifiable homicide in the US are laughable. It's basically permissible to kill an intruder during a home invasion regardless of actual, demonstrable threat in all something like 45 of 50 states because of Castle Doctrine laws. All you need to do is reasonably argue that there was a reasonable belief that a threat of violence existed, and case law suggests the mere act of someone breaking into a home constitutes enough to meet that criteria in some states. Just about anywhere else in the world, proportionality comes into the formula, but merely being on or inside someone else's property is often a justification for justifiable homicide and personally I think that's ridiculous.

Yeah those laws are so utterly varied with broad language too, a lot of the times it depends solely on how a prosecutor in one particular county wants to interpert the law. In Seattle, WA for example if you shoot and kill an intruder as he is exiting your home, it would likely be charged as murder. Here in central Washington, you can shoot a man as he flees across your backyard and not even be charged with illegally discharging a firearm because it isn't within city limits. The amount of discretion individual law officers can impose is slightly problematic too. I have seen stabbings charged as assault where in the exact same circumstances shooting the assailant was seen as legal. There seems to be absolutely no rhyme or reason in regard to that legislation. There seems to be no real universal standard to follow and so often is left up to officer and prosecutor to decide, and as you can assume that leads to a mixed bag of rulings.

 

I think the whole thing is predicated on fear and consumerism however, and the firearms manufacturers have extremely deep pockets and want to keep profits coming in. It isn't like they are Gillette, their product is not disposable, any modern firearm will last the lifetime of its owner. So they have to stay busy inventing reasons for people who don't already have them to get them, or for people who do already have them to get more. Combine that with how astronomically abundant and varied the range of firearms to own is, and they can price out any other more practical method of home Security or self defense just by affordability. More powerful though, they have convinced people that "filling a burglar full of holes if he steps foot in my home" is not only a reasonable response, but a reasonable thing to spend considerable amounts of time contemplating.

 

We buy into it because we love that self-sufficient bullsh*t, handling our own problems. A lot of Americans support capital punishment, the eye for an eye mentality, and obviously there is a huge glorification of gun violence in our media and more often than not in the form of romantic heroism as a crack shot dispatches the threats with grace and dignity. Then in real life it turns into something like the George Zimmerman incident where it is just a cluster f*ck of questionable motive and far from a graceful victory... Yet most 2A proponents still point to that incident like it actually validates their point. If that doesn't give you more insight into the mentality of 2A extremists I don't know what else could.

 

I also don't buy into the idea that without a large proliferation of small arms our government would "take over"... Or rather I just don't buy into the notion small arms could actually offer any resistance in today's age. Besides, when they talk about how firearms will never go away because they are so abundant, doesn't that include the scenario where the government has declared martial law and they have to get a gun? If it is always going to be possible to arm yourself why worry, it kind of seems like they ignore one part of that premise to support the other in that argument. Frankly their understanding of that type of conflict is extremely limited, referencing small forces triumphing over tactically superior forces, but completely ignoring aid and other large allying forces with vested interest. They actually belive muskets and minutemen alone won the revolution, the French assistance a mere mention. They see the Ak47, just not the Soviets behind it. In the meantime we have funneled so much money into our military, the funds spilled over to local police forces, developing complex crowd control and suppression technology. This whole notion we have to keep small arms around to facilitate some type of guerilla warfare is a pipe dream, but it feeds back into that kind of "fill em full of holes" fantasizing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

And again, I don't see how anyone could argue that shooting someone who enters your house, not just steps on your property, and isn't fleeing is wrong. Unless that is just an American idea...

 

The goal of burglary is to steal things and not get caught. I can't imagine a situation where a home intruder wants to stick around and murder your children for no reason.

 

As Sag says, the right to kill someone on your property only applies when you're using a gun. Try and use a knife, or a bottle... or an ashtray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

And again, I don't see how anyone could argue that shooting someone who enters your house, not just steps on your property, and isn't fleeing is wrong. Unless that is just an American idea...

 

The goal of burglary is to steal things and not get caught. I can't imagine a situation where a home intruder wants to stick around and murder your children for no reason.

 

As Sag says, the right to kill someone on your property only applies when you're using a gun. Try and use a knife, or a bottle... or an ashtray.

If your property is violated by somebody and you have a reasonable belief that they are a threat to you or your family, putting them down with a gun sounds fine to me. That being said, the regularity of that happening is few and far between. Most burglars are going to take off running if they realize people are in the house. What I'm saying is, if the intruder is given a chance to flee or surrender and doesn't, it's fair game to put them down... And that is the legal standard in even the most liberal states here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

But not basically anywhere else in the developed world, which was kind of my point. Elsewhere we have a proportionality test where a response must be proportionate to the violence or threat of violence. The mere fact that even the most liberal US states justify killing people who aren't posing any actual threat of harm doesn't stop them from being weird outliers in the grand scheme of Western justice systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

different cultures my friend

 

 

I mean mate

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

Irv have you ever actually considered what taking a life would do to you psychologically, or are you like the millions that so naively think they would be unaffected? I feel like by the way you're so cavalier in saying "put them down" you're one of the many who have just flippant assumed if it was "them or me" you could kill them and have no problems. It doesn't work like that with most people, even if you were totally justified and had no other choice but to kill to save your own life, some people suffer great trauma from taking life. Unless you have ever killed someone you can't know for sure how it would effect you. I think a large amount of appeal is made to the macho prideful side of man that wants to believe they could "put them down" and just walk away from it. It sells more guns than telling them the truth, that if they should ever actually have to take a life they run a high chance of being scarred for life. That just isn't as noble.

 

Human nature is to not want to kill other humans. There are studies that show troops in Vietnam, even after training, chose to shoot over the heads of the enemy rather than kill them. So there is a really good chance a person would never get a shot off.

 

Anyway my point really is this stuff rarely get a discussed when buying a gun. A defense course might mention it, but you never hear gun store owner saying, "Yeah if you can manage to fight the tunnel vision, actually squeeze the trigger and hit the guy, it will only take a few sessions of therapy to come to terms with the heart rending guilt of killing them." Nope, it's always something about putting him down or filling him with holes.

 

I don't even think a quarter of gun owners in America are responsible, even if they believe they are, because so often their version of responsibility doesn't include this narrative. It's all "shoot the bad guy" romanticizing while ignoring the more common realities. That is why you see men with 2k dollar ar15s mounted with tac lights and lasers and a big safe, hundred bucks on ammo a month... But not one re-enforced door, not one camera or even a 50 dollar a month home security system. I mean why bother seeing them coming or keeping them out, just put em down and carry on with dinner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

see pm

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

see PM??

 

this debate is no fun...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Also a lot of people won't flee or surrender, just stand there slack jawed, trying to come to terms with the fact that there's an actual firearm pointed at them. A lot of Americans frankly believe that guns are magic, that pointing a gun at someone automatically makes their hands rise in the air unless they're one of those ruthless black thugs probably so hopped up on crack that all they can think about is attacking your women.

 

From an outside perspective it's pretty clear that Americans view guns as being the way they're treated in the movies. The cops on TV never miss and hit an old lady, they never scream "put your hands in the air!" only for their target to be too frightened and confused to comply, passers-by never start crying and screaming and covering their ears while they mow down the rabid hoards. And if someone pulls a gun on them, why they just kick it out their hands or jump behind cover in the nick of time! Guns are magic instruments of justice and are always on the side of the good guys. After all, God gave guns to Americans to help them spread the holy word to savages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

I do think both groups exist, the "responsible gun owner" who base themselves in reality. It is kind of a numbers game though, because it would appear there are many more who shouldn't even have a driver's license so much as a gun... Then the extremists who really do think of it as an inalienable right who would defend every living persons access to a firearm over their access to virtually anything else, who think of them as magic wands. For whatever reason it is usually that side which is the most vocal and easiest to exploit by NRA-and-their-ilk's lobbying, and seem to want to act as if they represent the majority of Americans. I think it is just that "the empty can rattles the most" thing at play though.

 

Where I think people try to incorrectly draw parallels though is this insistence that the left plays the same game and any piece of legislation they propose is treated as extremist. In reality most legislation that's been proposed has been pretty moderate if you actually look at some of the more extremist opponents to guns, most of which try to correlate every type of freak accident or tragedy into personal culpability, and even then rarely suggest all out bans because they realize how futile, and actually unconstitutional it would be. However the extremists who suggest any type of legislation regulating firearms is unconstitutional tend to be the only ones opposing the proposed legislation, you know give and take a few arbitrary magazine size restrictions here and there. Overall though I think most Americans, gun owners included, are ready for some kind of change it is just that fringe that seems to be able to work to jam up the cogs of progress.

 

I don't think it is all that mysterious who drives the hysteria over gun grabs, it is precisely the people responsible for propagandizing gun culture to Americans. All that "from my cold dead hands" furor still sells, and I think the reason the right still tries to sell any form of legislation proposed as too much is because they are pandering to their supporters. They're pandering just as much as left politicians who only propose legislation to get votes in the first place, and so most of public opinion is mired in bipartisan politics, and most of control is up for sale to the highest bidder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seven50iL

 

Kinda ironic that Chicago is #1 at gun control here in the states but has the the most gun violence in America?

It's not really irony, it's simple logic.

 

Firstly, I don't think your statement here is factually accurate. Chicago doesn't even appear on the list of the 100 US cities with the highest violent crime rates per capita (stats here), Chicago proper doesn't rank in the top 100 US cities for murder rates per capita (stats here) though two of its neighbourhoods are ranked between 10th and 20th, and Illinois ranks 14th for firearm deaths by state and 22nd for firearm deaths per capita by state.

 

Chicago may be a city which sees higher levels of firearm related violence than other urban areas of a similar size in the US, but there are other factors which influence that. A prohibition on gun shops inside the city borders is not really an example of "gun control" given that the city does not have any more stringent regulation of possession of weapons that elsewhere in the state, and neighbouring counties do not ban gun shops. Add to that endemic problems with organised crime...

 

Then you have to take a look at why the gun shop ban was instigated- it was a response to exceedingly high levels of firearm-enabled crime. Has it worked at reducing that crime? To be frank, no it hasn't, but pretending that the ban is a cause of the crime rather than the effect of it is spectacularly disingenuous.

 

Im sick and tired of cops and criminals only having guns and the common tax payer like us are screwed over.

Thing is, though, they aren't. Even in states with fairly stringent regulations on legal market firearm purchases, grey market, private-sale guns are essentially unregulated. Pretty much the only time private purchasers buying from individual sellers will ever be exposed to any legislation, state or federal, that even resembles gun "control" is when they either apply for a concealed or open carry permit or if they go through the judicial system.

 

There is a damn good reason in the constitution that is says "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

There was a good reason the constitution enshrined the right to bear arms...in 1791. The same reason there was a good reason for enshrining the right to raise militias in 1791, which isn't something we see very much of, is it?

It's also worth noting that the Supreme Court has consistently said that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and does not prohibit regulation of firearms at the whims of either federal government or states. For a group of people who bang on about constitutional rights, many deregulation proponents lack any contextual understanding of the constitution or any coherent knowledge of the Supreme Court's role in interpreting it.

 

Additionally, if we do have these gun free zones, it is only going to provoke weirdo's into targeting those places. Why is that? Simple, it is because they have the upper hand...

This is a "chicken little" fallacy; shootings don't disproportionately target explicitly gun-free zones so the notion that limiting these zones would reduce shooting incidents is illogical. Additionally, when mass shooting incidents do occur in zones permitting concealed or open carry, the frequency with which armed citizens have actually responded to an event let alone contributed to stopping one is so small as to be effectively nonexistent. Bystander Syndrome tends to stop armed people from actually responding anyway, so it's largely an exercise in futility from a practical standpoint.

 

If we were armed like we were intended to be

Are you saying here that numerous Supreme Courts have been wrong in their interpretation of the constitution but you're right?

 

Another silly argument is that "Oh how come other countries like the UK etc etc are fine without it" America is culturally different

The US is indeed culturally different; firearm violence is an endemic part of US culture that's worshipped with a practically religious furore. Consumption of violent media, music glorifying gang violence and the suchlike exists in many Western countries; many Western countries have similar problems with gang violence, though usually not on quite the same scale. The US suffers with poorer basic levels of mental heathcare, a higher disparity between rich and poor and a few other factors which influence the comparatively stratospheric firearm crime rates, but the biggest factors are simply that guns are incredibly easy to obtain for just about anyone, the notion that firearm ownership is an inalienable right regardless of behaviour or competency is basically ingrained into the US psyche, and very few people actually have any coherent training in safe use of weapons. The whole point in legislating on the issue is supposed to be to remove or dramatically limit access for the lowest common denominators whilst ensuring that law-abiding individuals capable of using weapons responsibly are completely unaffected. You look at the statistics for accidental firearm deaths in the US and tell me that, as a society, people don't need better understanding of weapon safety.

 

If liberals are trying to ban/limit the types of guns, only cops and criminals would have guns.

This is a straw man on two counts.

 

One, most "liberals" as you call them (I.E anyone not in the NRA's back pocket) don't actually want to ban guns at all, or limit the guns themselves. What they want to do is limit the accessibility of weapons to try and mitigate the huge number of "going postal" style murder committed by people who, for whatever reason, simply "snap". These murders effectively only occur because the individual in question has easy access to a firearm; they're far less prevalent in countries where firearm laws require a shooting to be premeditated (I.E separating ammunition and unloaded weapon). These kinds of murders outweigh instances of individuals legitimately shooting intruders or assailants in self-defence by a truly astronomical factor.

 

Two, several case studies where weapons have been subject to greater regulation in the wake of violent incidents have shown long-term drops in the level of gun violence. True, these cases are typically not directly relatable to the US case, but the "only cop and crims have guns" argument is largely nonsense if you actually look at the statistics of where criminals obtain firearms. The vast majority of guns used in violent incidents are grey or black-market weapons; grey-market ones being private purchases and black being generally stolen or trafficked. A crackdown on the private sales of guns will go some way to negating their availability; similarly more coherent rules on storing weapons make them harder to steal.

 

As an interesting aside, eight of the last fourteen mass shootings have involved legally-owned, shop-bought weapons to which the perpetrators had direct access, including several which were owned directly by them, so there's clearly a fundamental problem in the ability of US authorities to vet people.

 

-

 

As a further aside, I'm of the view that if more Americans were capable of extracting themselves from their societally induced groupthink and viewing the whole debate with a bit more objectivity there would be more coherent support for sensible measures to remediate some of the endemic issues.

 

 

I see & understand your views Savis, but I respectfully disagree with some of your claims. "Chicago doesn't even appear on the list of the 100 US cities with the highest violent crime rates per capital. To be fair, I was not being specific regarding general crime, but rather crime that has been involved with particularly gun violence. According to numerous sources, gun violence is a very, very big issue there and it is only getting worse. And since 2012, there been 6,000 shootings as well. The Chiraq PD are reporting to get guns illegal guns every 75 min. Kinda makes sense since there is a shooting every 2.8 hours in Chicago; which is sadly getting worse. One thing I do agree with is regarding the gun store issue: "Has it worked at reducing crime? To be frank, no it hasn't". If absurd left-wing policies such as limiting Americans to only magazines holding 12 rounds and making it extremely hard to even get a gun in the 1st place, I am not surprised gun store's surrounding that area are not doing great. I did some searching and if I am correct, there is no gun store in Chicago. The nearest one is Suburban Sporting Goods, which is in Melrose, IL. And it does not help that Chicago politicians are going to the wrong people to trade in their guns. On the other hand, even if this is the problem we really need to point figures at the lack of parenting most of these kids have. And it's been going like that for generations unfortunately. You can only use that lame excuse of a "race card" for so long. (This is not directed towards you) but I hate how some kids are like "naaw dawg it is what it is we grew up like dat". I understand people have tough upbringings, but there comes a time when your old enough like 16 for ex. to wake up and say "Do I really want to be a part of this or do I actually want to live like normal person?" It's a damn shame most of these kids do not want be somebody...how come they cant be more young blacks like Static Shock? Not at a super hero level but a smart, educated man contributing to society? Most of these kids have no real idols in their lives besides popular rappers such as Chief Keef, and Lil Durk. Lastly, many people might not agree with me, but shame on Obama and other prestigious blacks exploiting the BLM movement. It's so hypocritical...but it's OK for blacks to be racist to innocent whites but with no consequences? It's seems like nowadays, if your a normal straight white male, your either a homophobe or a racist bastard according to todays "PC BRUH" standards lmao!

 

Martin Luther King said to judge people by content of character and not by their skin. People need to #WakeUp&SmellTheCoffee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

"Chicago doesn't even appear on the list of the 100 US cities with the highest violent crime rates per capital. To be fair, I was not being specific regarding general crime, but rather crime that has been involved with particularly gun violence.

I don't disagree with the notion that Chicago has a disproportionate issue with firearm crime but I do disagree with the presentation of the reason for that in your initial post. The implication is, or was, that the measures put in to limit the sale of firearms within the city limits were somehow a contributory factor in the levels of firearm crime when they are more accurately described as a result of it. The causal link is the inverse of that you portray- the laws put in place to limit the ability for gun shops to operate are a response to the wider issue of firearm violence rather than a product of it.

 

According to numerous sources, gun violence is a very, very big issue there and it is only getting worse. And since 2012, there been 6,000 shootings as well.

This is a little bit disengenuous. If you read the article you quote, it doesn't portray Chicago itself as being particularly prone to mass shootings (title aside) but particular areas of the city. The same can be said of many cities around the world- there are areas of London with murder rates an order of magnitude higher than anywhere else in the city but these are outliers rather than general trends and should not be treated as such. In fact, I'd argue that the largely area based nature of these pockets of exceptional violence offer further proof that these are not a result of policies restricting the purchasing of guns in the city proper.

 

which is sadly getting worse.

It's worth noting this isn't a trend solely isolated to Chicago. Therefore I think the suggestion it's an issue that's a product of policies only affecting thst city is pretty inaccurate.

 

If absurd left-wing policies

Americans really need to understand what "left-wing" actually means. Whilst I don't agree with the notion that policies like magazine size restrictions have any tangible impact on crime rates, the attempt to tar them as a product of a far wider political ideology doesn't really wash.

 

limiting Americans to only magazines holding 12 rounds and making it extremely hard to even get a gun in the 1st place

It's really not though. I also note your source here is Infowars, run by everyone's favourite right wing extremism and wingnut conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

 

No idea what the rest of your post was trying to say I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

Basically he was trying to assert that the real systemic root of gun violence, in Chicago at least, is young black males who come from broken families with no appropriate male role model, who instead only have rap stars who glamorize a violent lifestyle to idolize. Very common proposal coming from conservatives, practically trademark. Actually a good example of how this topic gets swept up in bipartisan politics with his attack on the "left"... He strikes me as someone that says "libtard" a lot. This is a way of dismissing the premise based on associated ideologies... If gun control is a "liberal", "left" or "democratic" idea then it must be absurd. Or in contrast, since he is so obviously right leaning, espousing conservative ideologies, it immediately sets many left thinking people against his opinions.

 

I think it's the news media that literally manufactures this divisiveness and is a unique facet of the issue when it comes to the US. Are there any other countries where the issue is used as a political device as frequently and obviously as it is here?

Edited by SagaciousKJB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

I think it's the news media that literally manufactures this divisiveness and is a unique facet of the issue when it comes to the US. Are there any other countries where the issue is used as a political device as frequently and obviously as it is here?

yeah, the UK and EU issues for one.

 

Seven, I'm not sure how you can actually blame left wing policies for gun violence. You can sure as hell make an argument that they aren't working to counter it, but this tired old idea that gun control laws are the reason shootings occur because "the good guys can't carry" just doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.. we've discussed that so called "good guy with a gun" thing on the past pages. I think like 90% of issues in politics, a combination of a little of both side's ideas serve you the best.

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[207] A. Pearce

I'm just now noticing this topic and I wanna toss something out to non-Americans speaking as though our country is your issue. Go f*ck yourself. Now that that is cleared up let's move on shall we? Not gonna post statistics, because let's face it 3/4 of them are from state sponsored sites and most statistics don't speak clearly enough so, cold hard brutal truth boys and girls. Law Enforcement Officer. To serve and protect. Hm. How? When was the last time you heard "Officer on duty stops shooting" and not "Officers are investigating a shooting.." the police are not there for events. They don't hold our hands and walk us along the way to work or school. So enough babble about "officers are there to protect", "police officers should be the only ones allowed to carry guns". Adding on, to the idiots posting about their safe gun controlled countries, that is wonderful! Stay there and enjoy your life. But, while you want to say we Americans think its still the wild west and make fun of it that way, you still proceed to speak of all the shootings. Interesting. Aren't you equally implying it is like the wild west? Only now, when someone walks into a bar with a loaded weapon intending on doing harm, gun control prevents everyone in there from doing sh*t. Whereas in the 1800s, that f*cker would've been dead. I'm a proud gun owner. Handgun, rifle, and shotgun. Do I believe everyone should have a weapon? Of course not. Do I believe everyone capable should? Not a bad idea. But if you don't like them don't own them. Is it my god given right? Dunno. I'm not religious. But do I feel safer with a gun on my hip than I do with a cop next to me? Yeah I do. So for foreigners, that keep talking in constant circles of hypocrisy of "ITS NOT THE WILD WEST BUT YOU STILL HAVE JUST AS MANY SHOOTOUTS!", please, cease to exist. Stay in your country and enjoy whatever it is you enjoy there. I'm gonna go shoot clays, then targets, then possibly even go hunting. And when I go to the store my pistol will be one of two places depending on the store's policy. My hip. Or my truck. Good day, anti-gun nuts.

Edited by xXMizmerXx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Ridiculous rambling diatribe

See, even if you had a point, your vitriol, childish insults and holier-than-though attitude would invalidate it. Please stay out of D&D if you aren't going to abide by the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

The funny thing about American right-wingers is they feel entitled to invade sovereign nations if there's something they don't like going on,but god forbid some dirty foreigner criticizes any of aspect of Murican life!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Member1626225

The funny thing about American right-wingers is they feel entitled to invade sovereign nations if there's something they don't like going on,but god forbid some dirty foreigner criticizes any of aspect of Murican life!

 

The gun culture isn't necessarily an America-only thing. I do agree that some American right-wingers can be a bit rude. When you have a slightly different opinion, some of them will instantly call you ''Eurotrash'' or something like that. I was spreading around comments on the IV8888 YouTube channel about the proposed EU gun ban and got a lot of support from American shooters. Also got a lot of ''f*ck Europe, I don't care about your sh*t'' comments. I think this mentality is really selfish.

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.


  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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