(disclaimer)
I am quite sure that this thread has been made before, but it was not on the first page of this forum. We do have a separate thread that analyzed whether non-owners should be fined, but the scope of that thread is highly limited. This is meant as an unbiased look at gun crime, rates, and laws.
WHY GUN CONTROL
We all know that guns are not completely responsible for gun crimes in the US. However I think the best way to attack the problems with gun violence is two-fold.
1. If we can limit guns, and the type of guns we can reduce the odds that they get into the wrong hands.
2. As per keeping gun crimes down this is much more difficult if you look from the person side. Crime rates in general are related to so many factors it is really impossible to legislate them out. Some methods do exist, but are outside the scope of this thread.
This thread is meant to attack these problems with gun control(not outright banning of all firearms) Common concerns with this method exist, but counterarguments do exist which make just as much sense as the original concerns.
THE BIG 3 ARGUMENTS AGAINST GUN CONTROL
"but won't criminals just illegally buy the guns"
Well yeah the idea is not that career criminals won't be able to get guns. These spree shootings that we have seen over the years were not done by professional or even somewhat pro criminals. Making it harder to get a gun allows more time for "problem detection", and eliminates the chance to mass kill on a passionate impulse. A big problem I have noticed by looking at stats is that youths who have been in trouble with the law have extremely high illegal gun ownership.
"but gun crime will still exist"
No measure is 100%. Humans are violent by nature. I mean look at violence before guns. The issue here is that guns are a lot more deadly than any other weapon type commonly used in crimes. Not to mention the fact that mass killings with weapons that aren't guns or explosives are almost non-existent.
"but what about people who need to defend themselves"
This is probably the biggest argument against gun control. I agree that this is an aspect to be looked at. Some other countries allow public gun carrying through permits given out to people who work in dangerous environments.(such as taxi cab drivers, or convenience stores in highly dangerous areas)
The other aspect to this is the fact that you really only need a gun to defend off perps that have guns. Other non-lethal measure such as tazer guns(ect) are more than effective on people who are either unarmed, or are armed with knives, broken bottles, ect. Limiting the number of guns will lower this down significantly since most crimes of this sort are not committed by career criminals.
GOALS OF GUN CONTROL
Now that this is all said we need to evaluate goals of gun control. Again gun control is not gun prohibition.
1. Limit the availability of the most dangerous guns. This does not include most rifles which are used for hunting.
2. Limit the chances that insane people will get a hold of a gun.
3. Limit the chances of youth coming in contact with guns without adult supervision.(in cases of hunting and shoot competitions)
4. Limit the number of "passion" killings.(reducing gun availability lowers the number of murders by passion. Knives are quite effective in this, but guns are the first choice and allow killing from range. Also knifes are generally less than half as effective as guns.
So now that the goals have been summarized we can move to the how part. What measures can be taken to achieve these goals, and how broad will they be? This is a hard question to answer because some things need to be looked at and discussed.
POTENTIAL MEASURES TO USE FOR GUN CONTROL
1. Making illegal certain types of firearms or on certain capabilities.
This one has great potential and has had some success in the US and across the world. Statistics show that a large majority of gun crime is due to handguns.(75% compared to other guns 15%)
Making handguns illegal is tough, so instead maybe limiting mag capacity or only allowing revolver style hand guns could help. Semi-auto weapons are a large percentage of gun deaths in recent years.(which correlates to amounts of these guns bought)
Of course none of these laws could be retroactive. So you would have to set a manufacturing date law with the year the law become such. Offering buybacks for guns that would then be illegal models only legal due to manufacturing date would speed up the effect of this law, but not by much.(Rome was not built in a day to be cliche)
Maybe allow some sort of permit that allows police forces to carry the now illegal(if such a law should pass) guns. The main idea is to stop the supply of these weapons to limit the danger.
2. Make private gun sells illegal.
This is a big problem in my mind. Even if it was illegal for me to buy guns because I was a felon(or whatever reason) I can easily find someone who wants to sell a gun especially with the hard economic times.
The downside to this is used guns get more expensive.(as licensed dealers all need to make profits) Another potential problem is how do you enforce such a law? Studies have found that citizens in general follow laws if they are not to hard to comply with. Sure only being able to sell guns to dealers might be slightly inconvenient, but most laws that are broke involve some sort of complete prohibition.(drugs, speeding)
This law would be effective on almost immediately.
3. Waiting periods.
These help curb murders of passion or murders out of temporary insanity. Currently 3 day waiting periods exist for certain guns. IMO we need to increase the scale and length of these. For example I believe that all firearms should have some waiting period.
This would be active shortly after the legislation passes.
4. Tougher safety laws, and laws against carrying weapons with ammunition.
If you look at several of the spree shootings have been with weapons taken from legal owners. Other countries have laws that make the owner of weapons fully responsible(in correlation with the offender) for any harm their weapon does.
These laws state that all weapons should be kept in a secure locking cabinet/safe. Guns taken from the safe to be carried(into the hunting woods for example) should be kept in a locked gun case separate from ammo and unloaded.
This makes it much harder for weapons to be immediately obtained(in conjunction with waiting period laws) and reduces the chance that illicit people have access to guns.(in conjunction with making private gun sells illegal)
These laws would be set to begin after 6 months to a year after the law passes. This period of time should allow citizens to procure legal cabinets/safes and cases for weapons.
5. Require license for all or most weapons.
This is one of more controversial points. Gun licensing should require test similar to driving test.(in a way) These test would be designed so that people who pass have a firm understanding of gun laws and how to safely store and carry guns within the confines of these tougher laws. Unfortunately this would have to be somewhat retroactive to actually matter. I would suggest setting a period of 3-4 years for complete compliance. Then for another period(1-3 years or so) those caught with unlicensed weapons would be warned or fined.
The main question is to what scope to require licensing. Personally If I could make the law I would at the very least require licenses for all hand guns, and semi-automatic weapons. This would exclude a number of hunting rifles, single shot(or double barrel) shotguns, and muzzle-loading rifles. These guns have purposes for things other than just killing other people.(for example hunting)
6. Limit carrying of loaded weapons(visible or not) to officers and citizens who pass classes similar to concealed carry classes needed for concealed carry permits.
This one is pretty self-explanatory. If you want to carry a loaded weapon you need to pass a class that advises use and safety. This would be effective almost immediately.
EXAMPLE OF DIFFERENT FIREARMS AND RESTRICTIONS.
(these are not set in stone, but are sort of my ideas. Debate and tuning would be needed)
Muzzle-loading rifles - 0 to 1 day waiting period. being in a locked safe/case only required if gun is still loaded or ammunition/caps/powder are not. Background checks still required. No gun license required.
Single shot(break-away) shotguns - 1 to 3 day waiting period. Must be kept unloaded and locked up at all times. Background checks required. No license required.
Bolt-action Rifles - 1 to 3 day waiting period. Must be kept unloaded and locked at all times. Background checks required. No license required.
Semi-auto weapons - 3 to 5 day waiting period. Must be kept unloaded and locked at all times. Background checks required. License required.(includes pump shotguns)
Handguns - 3-5 day waiting period. Must be kept unloaded and locked at all times.(unless permit is obtained) Background check required. License required
I will further update this OP later with more details, and list of references. I am of the opinion that everything listed above should not technically infringe upon the second amendment because it still allows possession of firearms in most cases.(except those that are already enforced such as felons)
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
The main point you should draw from the article is that 3d printing machines are already capable of making gun-parts and those guns have been successfully fired - albeit with very limited durability.
3d printers are not particularly complex devices that are getting simpler and cheaper all the time. There are already commercial versions that don't cost too much and there are predictions that they may eventually become mass market enough to cost a few hundred dollars.
There's a lot of concern that people will be able to print all of the parts to make a disposable gun. If it only fires five or six times that could easily be five or six dead people.
Debating gun control overhauls right now is - to me anyways - like talking about fixing a crack in the dam when a hurricane is blowing in from off-shore.
What happened yesterday was not a gun issue, its a society issue. I will say again, guns have always been in this country, the country was built with them. Guns are one of the few constants in this country. It wasnt until the 1970s when gun violence started to climb. So something happened in the 70s in society to increase gun violence, but it wasnt guns. Also, its harder right now to legally buy a pistol or rifle then it was in the 70s or before. You use to be able to buy guns through a Sears catalog and get them delivered to your door step with no back ground check. Today you need to go through all kinds of checks before the pistol or rifle is released to you.
Of course, this is the people who obtain guns in the legal manner. But these laws and restrictions would only effect those who follow the laws any way. Criminals would still have guns, and they would still use them for evil things.
Now if we would stop ***** footing around the issue by blaming guns for personal responsibility issues, then maybe we can get some where. But its too easy to point at guns, a tool, and over look the person using the tool.
What happened yesterday was not a gun issue, its a society issue. I will say again, guns have always been in this country, the country was built with them. Guns are one of the few constants in this country. It wasnt until the 1970s when gun violence started to climb. So something happened in the 70s in society to increase gun violence, but it wasnt guns. Also, its harder right now to legally buy a pistol or rifle then it was in the 70s or before. You use to be able to buy guns through a Sears catalog and get them delivered to your door step with no back ground check. Today you need to go through all kinds of checks before the pistol or rifle is released to you.
Of course, this is the people who obtain guns in the legal manner. But these laws and restrictions would only effect those who follow the laws any way. Criminals would still have guns, and they would still use them for evil things.
Now if we would stop ***** footing around the issue by blaming guns for personal responsibility issues, then maybe we can get some where. But its too easy to point at guns, a tool, and over look the person using the tool.
If you would have read the OP I did mention that guns were only part of the problem. I understand this. I am not naive. However gun control is the easiest way to start working on problems. Sure crime will still exist and most criminals will still get guns. It is about starting to take steps in the right direction as a society. Making it hard for normal citizens who somewhat suddenly snap would go a good ways towards curving some of the violence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
So if we make guns illegal, you mean they won't be on the street? We should make heroin and cocaine illegal, too!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
So if we make guns illegal, you mean they won't be on the street? We should make heroin and cocaine illegal, too!
My thread never said anything about outright making guns illegal. Please read the damn post before commenting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
What happened yesterday was not a gun issue, its a society issue. I will say again, guns have always been in this country, the country was built with them. Guns are one of the few constants in this country. It wasnt until the 1970s when gun violence started to climb. So something happened in the 70s in society to increase gun violence, but it wasnt guns. Also, its harder right now to legally buy a pistol or rifle then it was in the 70s or before. You use to be able to buy guns through a Sears catalog and get them delivered to your door step with no back ground check. Today you need to go through all kinds of checks before the pistol or rifle is released to you.
Of course, this is the people who obtain guns in the legal manner. But these laws and restrictions would only effect those who follow the laws any way. Criminals would still have guns, and they would still use them for evil things.
Now if we would stop ***** footing around the issue by blaming guns for personal responsibility issues, then maybe we can get some where. But its too easy to point at guns, a tool, and over look the person using the tool.
If you would have read the OP I did mention that guns were only part of the problem. I understand this. I am not naive. However gun control is the easiest way to start working on problems. Sure crime will still exist and most criminals will still get guns. It is about starting to take steps in the right direction as a society. Making it hard for normal citizens who somewhat suddenly snap would go a good ways towards curving some of the violence.
The problem is, going the gun control route is not tackling the actual problem(s). Put forth the effort to tackle the problems that the tools are being used wrong for and there will be no need for gun control.
Gun control has never punished those who illegally obtain their guns to do their evil deeds (like the Conn. shootings), gun control punishes law abiding citizens that follow the rules and laws of the land.
It is harder now in this country to obtain a gun that at any other time in our history. You literally have to have a spotless record and pass a background check that takes any where between 3-10 days depending on the state and the weapon you are trying to buy. There are some weapons civilians can not own (legally), which is a change from the past also.
Instead, we should be putting our time and effort into the reasons why these people are snapping and going on these shooting rampages.
What happened yesterday was not a gun issue, its a society issue. I will say again, guns have always been in this country, the country was built with them. Guns are one of the few constants in this country. It wasnt until the 1970s when gun violence started to climb. So something happened in the 70s in society to increase gun violence, but it wasnt guns. Also, its harder right now to legally buy a pistol or rifle then it was in the 70s or before. You use to be able to buy guns through a Sears catalog and get them delivered to your door step with no back ground check. Today you need to go through all kinds of checks before the pistol or rifle is released to you.
Of course, this is the people who obtain guns in the legal manner. But these laws and restrictions would only effect those who follow the laws any way. Criminals would still have guns, and they would still use them for evil things.
Now if we would stop ***** footing around the issue by blaming guns for personal responsibility issues, then maybe we can get some where. But its too easy to point at guns, a tool, and over look the person using the tool.
If you would have read the OP I did mention that guns were only part of the problem. I understand this. I am not naive. However gun control is the easiest way to start working on problems. Sure crime will still exist and most criminals will still get guns. It is about starting to take steps in the right direction as a society. Making it hard for normal citizens who somewhat suddenly snap would go a good ways towards curving some of the violence.
The problem is, going the gun control route is not tackling the actual problem(s). Put forth the effort to tackle the problems that the tools are being used wrong for and there will be no need for gun control.
Gun control has never punished those who illegally obtain their guns to do their evil deeds (like the Conn. shootings), gun control punishes law abiding citizens that follow the rules and laws of the land.
It is harder now in this country to obtain a gun that at any other time in our history. You literally have to have a spotless record and pass a background check that takes any where between 3-10 days depending on the state and the weapon you are trying to buy. There are some weapons civilians can not own (legally), which is a change from the past also.
Instead, we should be putting our time and effort into the reasons why these people are snapping and going on these shooting rampages.
I agree that we can put time and effort into figuring out the main problem. However this is a problem that needs to be attacked from all angles. The guns in the conn shootings were actually legally bought guns that were taken from the owner who did not have them locked up. Gun control is also about keeping guns locked out unable to take. The OR mall shootings gun was also legally bought but stolen. columbine the same.(all according to CNN)
If it was harder to get guns when these people do snap for whatever reason they won't have as easy of a time committing mass murders.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
What happened yesterday was not a gun issue, its a society issue. I will say again, guns have always been in this country, the country was built with them. Guns are one of the few constants in this country. It wasnt until the 1970s when gun violence started to climb. So something happened in the 70s in society to increase gun violence, but it wasnt guns. Also, its harder right now to legally buy a pistol or rifle then it was in the 70s or before. You use to be able to buy guns through a Sears catalog and get them delivered to your door step with no back ground check. Today you need to go through all kinds of checks before the pistol or rifle is released to you.
Of course, this is the people who obtain guns in the legal manner. But these laws and restrictions would only effect those who follow the laws any way. Criminals would still have guns, and they would still use them for evil things.
Now if we would stop ***** footing around the issue by blaming guns for personal responsibility issues, then maybe we can get some where. But its too easy to point at guns, a tool, and over look the person using the tool.
If you would have read the OP I did mention that guns were only part of the problem. I understand this. I am not naive. However gun control is the easiest way to start working on problems. Sure crime will still exist and most criminals will still get guns. It is about starting to take steps in the right direction as a society. Making it hard for normal citizens who somewhat suddenly snap would go a good ways towards curving some of the violence.
The problem is, going the gun control route is not tackling the actual problem(s). Put forth the effort to tackle the problems that the tools are being used wrong for and there will be no need for gun control.
Gun control has never punished those who illegally obtain their guns to do their evil deeds (like the Conn. shootings), gun control punishes law abiding citizens that follow the rules and laws of the land.
It is harder now in this country to obtain a gun that at any other time in our history. You literally have to have a spotless record and pass a background check that takes any where between 3-10 days depending on the state and the weapon you are trying to buy. There are some weapons civilians can not own (legally), which is a change from the past also.
Instead, we should be putting our time and effort into the reasons why these people are snapping and going on these shooting rampages.
I agree that we can put time and effort into figuring out the main problem. However this is a problem that needs to be attacked from all angles. The guns in the conn shootings were actually legally bought guns that were taken from the owner who did not have them locked up. Gun control is also about keeping guns locked out unable to take. The OR mall shootings gun was also legally bought but stolen. columbine the same.(all according to CNN)
If it was harder to get guns when these people do snap for whatever reason they won't have as easy of a time committing mass murders.
So go after those few who wish to leave their guns laying around for people to steal. Its called responsible decisions. If you cant make them, you need to be punished. Especially when it comes to something that can kill like a gun, sword, knife, or any other object that can be used as a weapon.
I agree guns need to be put away and locked up. But that still doesnt stop people from stealing guns. Criminals will always be able to obtain guns, always!
First, a definition. And this unfortunately really does need to be said.
Gun control does not mean the government comes and takes your guns and all guns are illegal now.
Gun control refers to a suite of policies - background checks before you can buy guns or ammo. Locked storage requirements. Licensing before you can own a gun and much more strict licensing for concealed carrying, or prohibition of concealed carrying. Bans on weapons with enormous clips that are accurate at longer ranges.
So, when you come out against gun control, keep this stuff in mind. It's a nuanced problem and blanket statements don't help the conversation at all. This is a conversation which we need to have in this country, and it needs to be a civil conversation, and the sweeping statements that include even the least invasive stuff (do people really think ammunition should be easier to buy than Sudafed?) don't help.
One other point - the vast majority of this problem is not massacres like we just saw. That's a drop of rain in the ocean compared to the scope of gun violence in America. It happens to have sparked a firestorm because even some very reasonable requirements (if there was a law that you have to have your guns locked up if you live in a house with a violently mentally ill person) would have prevented this particular instance (don't make this guy out to be a genius here, he's a kid with personality disorder, it was almost certainly a crime of passion). And that's a very compelling argument for certain minimum safety standards. But it's not much of the problem.
If we're willing to spend a lot of effort being careful to reduce automobile deaths, why aren't we willing to spend that effort reducing gun violence? We're not talking about taking your guns away and a little bit of regulation is not trampling on your freedoms. Yes, it's true that there will be violence no matter what we do. Yes, it's true that regulating guns won't eliminate gun violence. But if it'll lower the number of deaths, isn't that worth doing?
As a European it's mind boggling to me that you can buy - and som people think they need - assault rifles, semi-automatic handguns and etc., in the States.
An "assault rifle" is any weapon that can, with a single depression of the trigger, eject more than one round at a time (in short, this is the "full automatic" and "triple shot" settings, though there is the "double tap" setting on select weapons, such as the AN-94). This type of weapon is illegal in the United States.
A "semiautomatic weapon" is any weapon that requires the depression of the trigger to eject a round and reload, as well as rearming the firing mechanism in a single motion. Most handguns, such as the Glock 9, M9 Beretta, and Sig Sauer P226 are "semiautomatic" weapons and are the most common pistols in the world.
Don't be surprised by this information. The United States is not alone in how it deals with weapons of both natures.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to have any, but come on... the firepower of some weapons are just too excessive. A revolver and/or a hunting rifle I can understand.
Just my 2 cents.
A hunting rifle has the capability of - in one shot - doing more damage than a semiautomatic rifle, such as the CAR-15 ("civilian" M16 rifle)can in two shots. This is because most rifles are intended to take down game thatae larger than people in one shot. Revolvers,also, can do more damage with one shot than a semiautomatic pistol, barring larger calibers such as the .50-caliber Desert Eagle.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
I see. I'm not that big of a gun person to really know the right category of so many guns. Always thought of the M16 and its like as an assault rifle. Thanks for enlighenting me.
I'm all about dispelling the myths and fallacies.
I'm well aware of that these kind of weapons can inflict more damage per shot. But as I see it; a hunting rifle has a practical usage which a rifle like the M16 does not have.
And a revolver has to be reloaded, in most cases, every 6 shots. Compared to a Glock or Beretta with a large clip which you just eject after all shots are fired rather easily and pop in a new one and continue shooting.
If I need more than two shots to stop you, I've done something wrong. It doesn't matter if I use an M9 or a .357 S&W revolver, I'm taking you down quickly.
And semiautomatic rifles serve a purpose of hunting as well. You don't need a hunting rifle to do so.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
People who use a tragedy such as the most recent school shooting to further their own ideas about gun control make me sick, why does no one talk about mental health issues an how the guy could have been helped, I saw on the news today that 20 politicians got on their soap box and yelled about gun control but not a one of them wanted to talk about mental health care, none, zero, nada, gun control in my opinion will only a. Have possibly hurtful effects on the economy because we as a country like our guns and b. Would not, in my opinion, lower the chances (much) on people doing things like what's happened. The guy was carrying multiple guns, how is limiting the magazine cap. or outlawing assault weapons going to help when a person could carry multiple weapons. Gun control is exactly that... Control over peoples freedoms and making us more dependent on an already shoddy government. Frankly I'm just sick of the whole "oh my god look what guns do! We need to severly restrict or ban them so this won't happen!" Im pretty confident that whether they ban/restrict or impose high taxes on weapons and ammunition that this will happen over and over. Alright, end rant!
So, I'm not in favor of banning guns, but some of the pro-gun arguments being used are ridiculous and filled with half-truths.
Would criminals still have guns if guns were outlawed tomorrow? Absolutely. Would it be harder for them to continue to acquire guns? ABSOLUTELY. The less guns that are being produced for civilian use, the less guns fall into the hands of criminals, and the harder it is for criminals to acquire guns. I don't see how you can reasonably assume otherwise.
"Assault weapons" that civilians can own (without special licensing) are semi-automatic. However, that doesn't mean that they are the equivalent of a hunting rifle in their ability to be used by criminals for taking out multiple targets in a short amount of time. The design of these weapons is to do just that, and goes beyond merely how many rounds they can fire in a given time window. Stop pretending that hunting rifles and civilian M-16s are equivalent in their firepower or usage, they're not.
Coming at this from a mental-health perspective can give us explanations, but I'm not sure it can help us prevent most of these tragedies. How do you stop a newly schizophrenic young adult from snapping like this? It is my understanding that there aren't easily-identifiable symptoms that can serve as red flags, if there are any at all.
There are semi-auto hunting rifles that are in no way assault weapons, how would that be taken care of. the BAR is what I have in mind, it has a detachable magazine so in theory a person could walk into a place with one, fire multiple rounds quickly the reload as fast, and no I'm not talking about the old ww2 military rifle. What I'm getting at basically is that restricting weapons would be only the first step to the government having total control over us as a people, I say we should be more prepared if something like this should happen again, train teachers, doctors, whoever would be in a similar position in defensive procedures and maybe even arm them or have police or other security officers present. And to the op talking about special licensing or permits, who's to say one of the cops or legal owners won't go crazy and do the same. We don't live in a perfect world, we WILL NEVER stop violent crimes from happening. Even if it does help slow these types of situations from occurring it will not stop them and will more than likely cause more crime in general and how does that help our already overcrowded prison system, I would have to look it up to confirm but I'm pretty sure in all the world we have one of the largest numbers of inmates.
I agree that we can put time and effort into figuring out the main problem. However this is a problem that needs to be attacked from all angles. The guns in the conn shootings were actually legally bought guns that were taken from the owner who did not have them locked up. Gun control is also about keeping guns locked out unable to take. The OR mall shootings gun was also legally bought but stolen. columbine the same.(all according to CNN)
STOLEN guns are guns that are ILLEGALLY obtained. STEALING is ILLEGAL. How is this correlation not immediately apparent?
If it was harder to get guns when these people do snap for whatever reason they won't have as easy of a time committing mass murders.
If a guy wants to commit a mass murder and then dome himself, a case with a cute little lock isn't going to do jack ****.
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
People who use a tragedy such as the most recent school shooting to further their own ideas about gun control make me sick, why does no one talk about mental health issues an how the guy could have been helped, I saw on the news today that 20 politicians got on their soap box and yelled about gun control but not a one of them wanted to talk about mental health care, none, zero, nada, gun control in my opinion will only a. Have possibly hurtful effects on the economy because we as a country like our guns and b. Would not, in my opinion, lower the chances (much) on people doing things like what's happened. The guy was carrying multiple guns, how is limiting the magazine cap. or outlawing assault weapons going to help when a person could carry multiple weapons. Gun control is exactly that... Control over peoples freedoms and making us more dependent on an already shoddy government. Frankly I'm just sick of the whole "oh my god look what guns do! We need to severly restrict or ban them so this won't happen!" Im pretty confident that whether they ban/restrict or impose high taxes on weapons and ammunition that this will happen over and over. Alright, end rant!
If not now, when? After Giffords, we were told that it was too soon to talk about gun control. After Aurora, still too soon. After Ohio, still too soon. After this one? Oh hell no, you can't talk about gun control after this!
You're right though, the right time to talk isn't after a mass shooting. It's before one.
If a guy wants to commit a mass murder and then dome himself, a case with a cute little lock isn't going to do jack ****.
No, but strong gun laws do have a history of working. See: Australia after Port Arthur. See: China just Friday.
In two countries, elementary school attacks happened in which students were targetted. In one, 20 students were killed. In the other, zero were killed (22 wounded). I'm not saying we should be China with the gun control laws, but there are reasonable limitations that can be put in place.
As a European it's mind boggling to me that you can buy - and som people think they need - assault rifles, semi-automatic handguns and etc., in the States.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to have any, but come on... the firepower of some weapons are just too excessive. A revolver and/or a hunting rifle I can understand.
Just my 2 cents.
iknowrite! I completely agree. And while we're at it let's work on free speech control. Because let's be honest the founding fathers had no idea about things like the internet and youtube when they wrote the constitution. Back then you could only talk to the people in your immediate surrounding. If you spewed bad ideas it only affected those that could physically hear you.
Now? People can make youtube videos and be seen all around the world. They can spew their hatred/ideas and be seen/heard by millions easily. Waaay more damaging than a handgun I say. So I say let's have internet control and free speech control right alongside gun control. Just as the founding fathers never could fathom the weapons of today, neither could they fathom the internet and technology of today either. I'm not saying we shouldn't be able to have ways to express ourselves, but come on . . . the power of the internet is just too excessive. Postcards and/or letters I can understand.
1. Gun Control will make it harder to them to obtain guns.
This is simply not true. Most guns used in crimes are obtained illegally. In this case the guns were obtained illegally since he used someone else's ID.
Guns used in crimes are usually bought off the street and or stolen from legit holders.
(PS If you have a gun stolen please report it to the police immediately. Since that gun could be used in a crime and they come looking for you.)
2. Assault Rifles should be banned and large magazines.
a. Without having a class 3 license it is illegal to own an assault rifle. plus there are huge restrictions on owning one.
most rifles are design to look like one but aren't.
b. while limiting magazines limits bullets the idea is to kill as many oeople before getting caught. end result the same.
just not as many people might be killed.
the kid had mental issues. i guess his mom ignored them or did nothing to address it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I'd love to see the argument behind allowing hand guns to be sold to the public. Home defense can easily be handled by a shotgun which is a heck of a lot harder to shoot up a school with or to hide in your coat on your way to rob your local convenience store.
I'd love to see the argument behind allowing hand guns to be sold to the public. Home defense can easily be handled by a shotgun which is a heck of a lot harder to shoot up a school with or to hide in your coat on your way to rob your local convenience store.
ever try wielding shotgun in a contained space? highly unwieldy and you are more likely to hurt yourself than the other person.
as for the arguement see the 2nd amendment.
PS shotgun slug can do just as much damage. the also make some pretty nasty slugs that can travel pretty far.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am quite sure that this thread has been made before, but it was not on the first page of this forum. We do have a separate thread that analyzed whether non-owners should be fined, but the scope of that thread is highly limited. This is meant as an unbiased look at gun crime, rates, and laws.
WHY GUN CONTROL
We all know that guns are not completely responsible for gun crimes in the US. However I think the best way to attack the problems with gun violence is two-fold.
1. If we can limit guns, and the type of guns we can reduce the odds that they get into the wrong hands.
2. As per keeping gun crimes down this is much more difficult if you look from the person side. Crime rates in general are related to so many factors it is really impossible to legislate them out. Some methods do exist, but are outside the scope of this thread.
This thread is meant to attack these problems with gun control(not outright banning of all firearms) Common concerns with this method exist, but counterarguments do exist which make just as much sense as the original concerns.
THE BIG 3 ARGUMENTS AGAINST GUN CONTROL
Well yeah the idea is not that career criminals won't be able to get guns. These spree shootings that we have seen over the years were not done by professional or even somewhat pro criminals. Making it harder to get a gun allows more time for "problem detection", and eliminates the chance to mass kill on a passionate impulse. A big problem I have noticed by looking at stats is that youths who have been in trouble with the law have extremely high illegal gun ownership.
No measure is 100%. Humans are violent by nature. I mean look at violence before guns. The issue here is that guns are a lot more deadly than any other weapon type commonly used in crimes. Not to mention the fact that mass killings with weapons that aren't guns or explosives are almost non-existent.
This is probably the biggest argument against gun control. I agree that this is an aspect to be looked at. Some other countries allow public gun carrying through permits given out to people who work in dangerous environments.(such as taxi cab drivers, or convenience stores in highly dangerous areas)
The other aspect to this is the fact that you really only need a gun to defend off perps that have guns. Other non-lethal measure such as tazer guns(ect) are more than effective on people who are either unarmed, or are armed with knives, broken bottles, ect. Limiting the number of guns will lower this down significantly since most crimes of this sort are not committed by career criminals.
GOALS OF GUN CONTROL
Now that this is all said we need to evaluate goals of gun control. Again gun control is not gun prohibition.
1. Limit the availability of the most dangerous guns. This does not include most rifles which are used for hunting.
2. Limit the chances that insane people will get a hold of a gun.
3. Limit the chances of youth coming in contact with guns without adult supervision.(in cases of hunting and shoot competitions)
4. Limit the number of "passion" killings.(reducing gun availability lowers the number of murders by passion. Knives are quite effective in this, but guns are the first choice and allow killing from range. Also knifes are generally less than half as effective as guns.
So now that the goals have been summarized we can move to the how part. What measures can be taken to achieve these goals, and how broad will they be? This is a hard question to answer because some things need to be looked at and discussed.
POTENTIAL MEASURES TO USE FOR GUN CONTROL
1. Making illegal certain types of firearms or on certain capabilities.
This one has great potential and has had some success in the US and across the world. Statistics show that a large majority of gun crime is due to handguns.(75% compared to other guns 15%)
Making handguns illegal is tough, so instead maybe limiting mag capacity or only allowing revolver style hand guns could help. Semi-auto weapons are a large percentage of gun deaths in recent years.(which correlates to amounts of these guns bought)
Of course none of these laws could be retroactive. So you would have to set a manufacturing date law with the year the law become such. Offering buybacks for guns that would then be illegal models only legal due to manufacturing date would speed up the effect of this law, but not by much.(Rome was not built in a day to be cliche)
Maybe allow some sort of permit that allows police forces to carry the now illegal(if such a law should pass) guns. The main idea is to stop the supply of these weapons to limit the danger.
2. Make private gun sells illegal.
This is a big problem in my mind. Even if it was illegal for me to buy guns because I was a felon(or whatever reason) I can easily find someone who wants to sell a gun especially with the hard economic times.
The downside to this is used guns get more expensive.(as licensed dealers all need to make profits) Another potential problem is how do you enforce such a law? Studies have found that citizens in general follow laws if they are not to hard to comply with. Sure only being able to sell guns to dealers might be slightly inconvenient, but most laws that are broke involve some sort of complete prohibition.(drugs, speeding)
This law would be effective on almost immediately.
3. Waiting periods.
These help curb murders of passion or murders out of temporary insanity. Currently 3 day waiting periods exist for certain guns. IMO we need to increase the scale and length of these. For example I believe that all firearms should have some waiting period.
This would be active shortly after the legislation passes.
4. Tougher safety laws, and laws against carrying weapons with ammunition.
If you look at several of the spree shootings have been with weapons taken from legal owners. Other countries have laws that make the owner of weapons fully responsible(in correlation with the offender) for any harm their weapon does.
These laws state that all weapons should be kept in a secure locking cabinet/safe. Guns taken from the safe to be carried(into the hunting woods for example) should be kept in a locked gun case separate from ammo and unloaded.
This makes it much harder for weapons to be immediately obtained(in conjunction with waiting period laws) and reduces the chance that illicit people have access to guns.(in conjunction with making private gun sells illegal)
These laws would be set to begin after 6 months to a year after the law passes. This period of time should allow citizens to procure legal cabinets/safes and cases for weapons.
5. Require license for all or most weapons.
This is one of more controversial points. Gun licensing should require test similar to driving test.(in a way) These test would be designed so that people who pass have a firm understanding of gun laws and how to safely store and carry guns within the confines of these tougher laws. Unfortunately this would have to be somewhat retroactive to actually matter. I would suggest setting a period of 3-4 years for complete compliance. Then for another period(1-3 years or so) those caught with unlicensed weapons would be warned or fined.
The main question is to what scope to require licensing. Personally If I could make the law I would at the very least require licenses for all hand guns, and semi-automatic weapons. This would exclude a number of hunting rifles, single shot(or double barrel) shotguns, and muzzle-loading rifles. These guns have purposes for things other than just killing other people.(for example hunting)
6. Limit carrying of loaded weapons(visible or not) to officers and citizens who pass classes similar to concealed carry classes needed for concealed carry permits.
This one is pretty self-explanatory. If you want to carry a loaded weapon you need to pass a class that advises use and safety. This would be effective almost immediately.
EXAMPLE OF DIFFERENT FIREARMS AND RESTRICTIONS.
(these are not set in stone, but are sort of my ideas. Debate and tuning would be needed)
Muzzle-loading rifles - 0 to 1 day waiting period. being in a locked safe/case only required if gun is still loaded or ammunition/caps/powder are not. Background checks still required. No gun license required.
Single shot(break-away) shotguns - 1 to 3 day waiting period. Must be kept unloaded and locked up at all times. Background checks required. No license required.
Bolt-action Rifles - 1 to 3 day waiting period. Must be kept unloaded and locked at all times. Background checks required. No license required.
Semi-auto weapons - 3 to 5 day waiting period. Must be kept unloaded and locked at all times. Background checks required. License required.(includes pump shotguns)
Handguns - 3-5 day waiting period. Must be kept unloaded and locked at all times.(unless permit is obtained) Background check required. License required
I will further update this OP later with more details, and list of references. I am of the opinion that everything listed above should not technically infringe upon the second amendment because it still allows possession of firearms in most cases.(except those that are already enforced such as felons)
Two sources:
http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson's letter to John Adams, April 11 1823
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson's letter to John Adams, April 11 1823
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57558213-76/the-undetectable-firearms-act-and-3d-printed-guns-faq/
The main point you should draw from the article is that 3d printing machines are already capable of making gun-parts and those guns have been successfully fired - albeit with very limited durability.
3d printers are not particularly complex devices that are getting simpler and cheaper all the time. There are already commercial versions that don't cost too much and there are predictions that they may eventually become mass market enough to cost a few hundred dollars.
There's a lot of concern that people will be able to print all of the parts to make a disposable gun. If it only fires five or six times that could easily be five or six dead people.
Debating gun control overhauls right now is - to me anyways - like talking about fixing a crack in the dam when a hurricane is blowing in from off-shore.
Of course, this is the people who obtain guns in the legal manner. But these laws and restrictions would only effect those who follow the laws any way. Criminals would still have guns, and they would still use them for evil things.
Now if we would stop ***** footing around the issue by blaming guns for personal responsibility issues, then maybe we can get some where. But its too easy to point at guns, a tool, and over look the person using the tool.
If you would have read the OP I did mention that guns were only part of the problem. I understand this. I am not naive. However gun control is the easiest way to start working on problems. Sure crime will still exist and most criminals will still get guns. It is about starting to take steps in the right direction as a society. Making it hard for normal citizens who somewhat suddenly snap would go a good ways towards curving some of the violence.
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson's letter to John Adams, April 11 1823
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
My thread never said anything about outright making guns illegal. Please read the damn post before commenting.
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson's letter to John Adams, April 11 1823
The problem is, going the gun control route is not tackling the actual problem(s). Put forth the effort to tackle the problems that the tools are being used wrong for and there will be no need for gun control.
Gun control has never punished those who illegally obtain their guns to do their evil deeds (like the Conn. shootings), gun control punishes law abiding citizens that follow the rules and laws of the land.
It is harder now in this country to obtain a gun that at any other time in our history. You literally have to have a spotless record and pass a background check that takes any where between 3-10 days depending on the state and the weapon you are trying to buy. There are some weapons civilians can not own (legally), which is a change from the past also.
Instead, we should be putting our time and effort into the reasons why these people are snapping and going on these shooting rampages.
I agree that we can put time and effort into figuring out the main problem. However this is a problem that needs to be attacked from all angles. The guns in the conn shootings were actually legally bought guns that were taken from the owner who did not have them locked up. Gun control is also about keeping guns locked out unable to take. The OR mall shootings gun was also legally bought but stolen. columbine the same.(all according to CNN)
If it was harder to get guns when these people do snap for whatever reason they won't have as easy of a time committing mass murders.
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson's letter to John Adams, April 11 1823
So go after those few who wish to leave their guns laying around for people to steal. Its called responsible decisions. If you cant make them, you need to be punished. Especially when it comes to something that can kill like a gun, sword, knife, or any other object that can be used as a weapon.
I agree guns need to be put away and locked up. But that still doesnt stop people from stealing guns. Criminals will always be able to obtain guns, always!
Gun control does not mean the government comes and takes your guns and all guns are illegal now.
Gun control refers to a suite of policies - background checks before you can buy guns or ammo. Locked storage requirements. Licensing before you can own a gun and much more strict licensing for concealed carrying, or prohibition of concealed carrying. Bans on weapons with enormous clips that are accurate at longer ranges.
So, when you come out against gun control, keep this stuff in mind. It's a nuanced problem and blanket statements don't help the conversation at all. This is a conversation which we need to have in this country, and it needs to be a civil conversation, and the sweeping statements that include even the least invasive stuff (do people really think ammunition should be easier to buy than Sudafed?) don't help.
One other point - the vast majority of this problem is not massacres like we just saw. That's a drop of rain in the ocean compared to the scope of gun violence in America. It happens to have sparked a firestorm because even some very reasonable requirements (if there was a law that you have to have your guns locked up if you live in a house with a violently mentally ill person) would have prevented this particular instance (don't make this guy out to be a genius here, he's a kid with personality disorder, it was almost certainly a crime of passion). And that's a very compelling argument for certain minimum safety standards. But it's not much of the problem.
Now, one point. There is a very extensive literature ( http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html ) documenting that more guns in an area correlates with more homicide (not just gun homicide, homicide in general), country by country, region by region and state by state. There is a less extensive but still extant literature (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/ ) supporting the notion that states with stricter gun control laws have fewer homicides. The first case is basically a fact, the second needs deeper studying but it's got some evidence to support it.
If we're willing to spend a lot of effort being careful to reduce automobile deaths, why aren't we willing to spend that effort reducing gun violence? We're not talking about taking your guns away and a little bit of regulation is not trampling on your freedoms. Yes, it's true that there will be violence no matter what we do. Yes, it's true that regulating guns won't eliminate gun violence. But if it'll lower the number of deaths, isn't that worth doing?
I mean, the current wait period is 10 days... This will let me obtain guns much quicker.
An "assault rifle" is any weapon that can, with a single depression of the trigger, eject more than one round at a time (in short, this is the "full automatic" and "triple shot" settings, though there is the "double tap" setting on select weapons, such as the AN-94). This type of weapon is illegal in the United States.
A "semiautomatic weapon" is any weapon that requires the depression of the trigger to eject a round and reload, as well as rearming the firing mechanism in a single motion. Most handguns, such as the Glock 9, M9 Beretta, and Sig Sauer P226 are "semiautomatic" weapons and are the most common pistols in the world.
Don't be surprised by this information. The United States is not alone in how it deals with weapons of both natures.
A hunting rifle has the capability of - in one shot - doing more damage than a semiautomatic rifle, such as the CAR-15 ("civilian" M16 rifle)can in two shots. This is because most rifles are intended to take down game thatae larger than people in one shot. Revolvers,also, can do more damage with one shot than a semiautomatic pistol, barring larger calibers such as the .50-caliber Desert Eagle.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
I'm all about dispelling the myths and fallacies.
If I need more than two shots to stop you, I've done something wrong. It doesn't matter if I use an M9 or a .357 S&W revolver, I'm taking you down quickly.
And semiautomatic rifles serve a purpose of hunting as well. You don't need a hunting rifle to do so.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=9135796#post9135796
Buy thread
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=473224
Would criminals still have guns if guns were outlawed tomorrow? Absolutely. Would it be harder for them to continue to acquire guns? ABSOLUTELY. The less guns that are being produced for civilian use, the less guns fall into the hands of criminals, and the harder it is for criminals to acquire guns. I don't see how you can reasonably assume otherwise.
"Assault weapons" that civilians can own (without special licensing) are semi-automatic. However, that doesn't mean that they are the equivalent of a hunting rifle in their ability to be used by criminals for taking out multiple targets in a short amount of time. The design of these weapons is to do just that, and goes beyond merely how many rounds they can fire in a given time window. Stop pretending that hunting rifles and civilian M-16s are equivalent in their firepower or usage, they're not.
Coming at this from a mental-health perspective can give us explanations, but I'm not sure it can help us prevent most of these tragedies. How do you stop a newly schizophrenic young adult from snapping like this? It is my understanding that there aren't easily-identifiable symptoms that can serve as red flags, if there are any at all.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=9135796#post9135796
Buy thread
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=473224
STOLEN guns are guns that are ILLEGALLY obtained. STEALING is ILLEGAL. How is this correlation not immediately apparent?
If a guy wants to commit a mass murder and then dome himself, a case with a cute little lock isn't going to do jack ****.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
If not now, when? After Giffords, we were told that it was too soon to talk about gun control. After Aurora, still too soon. After Ohio, still too soon. After this one? Oh hell no, you can't talk about gun control after this!
You're right though, the right time to talk isn't after a mass shooting. It's before one.
--------------------------------
No, but strong gun laws do have a history of working. See: Australia after Port Arthur. See: China just Friday.
In two countries, elementary school attacks happened in which students were targetted. In one, 20 students were killed. In the other, zero were killed (22 wounded). I'm not saying we should be China with the gun control laws, but there are reasonable limitations that can be put in place.
iknowrite! I completely agree. And while we're at it let's work on free speech control. Because let's be honest the founding fathers had no idea about things like the internet and youtube when they wrote the constitution. Back then you could only talk to the people in your immediate surrounding. If you spewed bad ideas it only affected those that could physically hear you.
Now? People can make youtube videos and be seen all around the world. They can spew their hatred/ideas and be seen/heard by millions easily. Waaay more damaging than a handgun I say. So I say let's have internet control and free speech control right alongside gun control. Just as the founding fathers never could fathom the weapons of today, neither could they fathom the internet and technology of today either. I'm not saying we shouldn't be able to have ways to express ourselves, but come on . . . the power of the internet is just too excessive. Postcards and/or letters I can understand.
GWBKarador, Necrotic Ooze SubthemeBWG
1. Gun Control will make it harder to them to obtain guns.
This is simply not true. Most guns used in crimes are obtained illegally. In this case the guns were obtained illegally since he used someone else's ID.
Guns used in crimes are usually bought off the street and or stolen from legit holders.
(PS If you have a gun stolen please report it to the police immediately. Since that gun could be used in a crime and they come looking for you.)
2. Assault Rifles should be banned and large magazines.
a. Without having a class 3 license it is illegal to own an assault rifle. plus there are huge restrictions on owning one.
most rifles are design to look like one but aren't.
b. while limiting magazines limits bullets the idea is to kill as many oeople before getting caught. end result the same.
just not as many people might be killed.
the kid had mental issues. i guess his mom ignored them or did nothing to address it.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
if you look at the people that committ these types of crimes they all have some sort of mental issue.
this only works if there is a limited amount of guns to begin with.
it does not stop criminals from obtaining guns. never has never will. the only people that it stops are people that follow the law.
even if there would have been strict gun laws this kid would have found a way to do what he was going to do regardless.
ever try wielding shotgun in a contained space? highly unwieldy and you are more likely to hurt yourself than the other person.
as for the arguement see the 2nd amendment.
PS shotgun slug can do just as much damage. the also make some pretty nasty slugs that can travel pretty far.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum