Gun Control!

[Dark Lord Cam]

Here's the thing. Without gun restrictions, a guy can walk into a store, buy tons of ammunition, and buy an assault rifle. Semi-Automatic may not have a high reputation amongst the uninformed but it is just as dangerous as a fully automatic rifle. You can keep shooting as long as you can keep squeezing the trigger. With gun restrictions, the same guy has to go out of his way to acquire such a weapon. He has to make shady deals with guys on the street. He has to take the chance that the person he's dealing with isn't an undercover cop, and he hast to take the chance that the guy he's dealing with isn't going to just take his money and run. Not to mention, that dealer would have a harder time acquiring these weapons himself.

Did I mention we might also be able to help the Mexicans by cutting off the Cartels from their supply of high grade weapons? Some of that violence is already spilling over on to our side. It's only practical.

[Wolfie]

Here's the thing. Without gun restrictions, a guy can walk into a store, buy tons of ammunition, and buy an assault rifle. Semi-Automatic may not have a high reputation amongst the uninformed but it is just as dangerous as a fully automatic rifle. You can keep shooting as long as you can keep squeezing the trigger. With gun restrictions, the same guy has to go out of his way to acquire such a weapon. He has to make shady deals with guys on the street. He has to take the chance that the person he's dealing with isn't an undercover cop, and he hast to take the chance that the guy he's dealing with isn't going to just take his money and run. Not to mention, that dealer would have a harder time acquiring these weapons himself.

Did I mention we might also be able to help the Mexicans by cutting off the Cartels from their supply of high grade weapons? Some of that violence is already spilling over on to our side. It's only practical.

Do you feel they have to work harder to get drugs?
What about alcohol when it was banned>?

Its easyer for drugs I know that

and still even if you "do" that there is still the fact pepole want a lot more checks before you buy ANY gun, and that both of those are so widespread, I dont thiunk your "logic" really works at all, yes they have to worry about undercover cops, but how many get real drugs copared to getting busted?
I'd say all your doing is making it easy for them to go on a massacre. more so becuse now you cant trace the gun and so its possible for them to get away.
At least when they buy it legaly you can find who it belongs to.

[Dark Lord Cam]

Unlike drugs, guns are not addictive substances. Your average citizen can survive without them.

[DorostheConqueror]

Unlike drugs, guns are not addictive substances. Your average citizen can survive without them.

Cam has clearly never fired a gun before.

[Dark Lord Cam]

Well if you recall, I don't want a ban on all firearms. Just the ones that can be used for mass murder.

[Derp53]

Well if you recall, I don't want a ban on all firearms. Just the ones that can be used for mass murder.

with the right of ammo, that can be any gun

[House of the Wolf]

What's funny about this whole argument is this:

Germany and Japan both have among the highest populations in the world, yet the least amount of gun violence. Their constitutions outright ban gun possession. Guess who wrote their constitutions: we (the US) did. Irony? Nahh..

Yeah... that is called right of conquest liberation, but that point is moot. Germany got rid of all civilian firearms in the late 1930's when the Nazis banned ownership. The Shogun and the knightly Samurai class banned firearm ownership for the civilian population in circa 1608.

Your argument is a no go.

...none of this has to do with the correlation between the lack of guns and the lack of gun violence. Yes, there were other mitigating circumstances, but there are over a dozen other countries with firearm bans that all show the same thing: lack of gun violence. The connection isn't exactly hard to make....


Anyhow, a few things I think should happen:

1) A much more stringent, total permit released by every state's top police; some have this system in place (like MD), most do not.

2) A ban on all assault rifles, semi-automatic rifles, calibers higher than .45, and any/all armor piercing rounds. Why the hell any average civilian would need any of this extra lethality is beyond me.

3) A ban of all unlicensed private sales, including/especially at gun shows.

[Musicman247]

Anyhow, a few things I think should happen:

1) A much more stringent, total permit released by every state's top police; some have this system in place (like MD), most do not.

2) A ban on all assault rifles, semi-automatic rifles, calibers higher than .45, and any/all armor piercing rounds. Why the hell any average civilian would need any of this extra lethality is beyond me.

3) A ban of all unlicensed private sales, including/especially at gun shows.

I think almost every police officer in the nation (USA) would agree with you, at least on a professional level.

[the Savage Hippie]

Well, I think... nah, who am I kidding... OP tl;dr

[JockoBeans]

Ummm gun ban leads to less gun crime? Not for most countries like Britian for example. From 1998 violent crime with firearms went up 110%. And most forms of firearms are banned in Great Britain.

And with my earlier point. That had has everything to do it. The Japanese culture is not one for guns has has not been for 400 years. Guns cause little crime because guns were never an issue. Back in 1603, the Shogun FEARED peasant revolts and guns made the Samurai obsolete like it did in Europe. The Shogun thought ahead and banned almost every type of weapon from civilian ownership. Theses weapon laws are still in effect in the Empire to this day.

As for Germany, well... the Nazi gun grab should be self-explanatory. As for after, the Soviets and the occupying Allies did not want a rearmed Germany, civilian or military.

[the Savage Hippie]

Totally off-topic: You were right. Totally off topic.

Edit: What happened to freedom of speech. . Lol, well yeah, it was off topic.

[House of the Wolf]

Ummm gun ban leads to less gun crime? Not for most countries like Britian for example. From 1998 violent crime with firearms went up 110%. And most forms of firearms are banned in Great Britain.

And with my earlier point. That had has everything to do it. The Japanese culture is not one for guns has has not been for 400 years. Guns cause little crime because guns were never an issue. Back in 1603, the Shogun FEARED peasant revolts and guns made the Samurai obsolete like it did in Europe. The Shogun thought ahead and banned almost every type of weapon from civilian ownership. Theses weapon laws are still in effect in the Empire to this day.

As for Germany, well... the Nazi gun grab should be self-explanatory. As for after, the Soviets and the occupying Allies did not want a rearmed Germany, civilian or military.

My point seems to be lost on you. Very lost. I don't feel like going back and forth over it, so it's there for you to revisit at your leisure.

Perhaps this chart should help you, though, understand a little better. The top 10 nations from that list have historically little/inadequate gun control laws/efforts, or otherwise giant, gaping loopholes.

And yes, there are violent periods through time when crime doubles, but the trend is inarguable and clear: more effective gun control means less gun violence. Kinda like more condom use meaning less unwanted babies.

[Veck]

Anybody who genuinely believes that a lack of gun control actually reduces the amount of people being shot up should probably get themselves sectioned to save everyone else the trouble later.

Cam actually brought up a good point. There is irrefutable evidence that the Mexican cartels are being supplied by legal American arms dealers. Regardless of it being unintentional, the fact that these people are able to buy these weapons perfectly legally shows a serious problem with gun laws in the states that sell them.

[Archer]

Anyhow, a few things I think should happen:

1) A much more stringent, total permit released by every state's top police; some have this system in place (like MD), most do not.

2) A ban on all assault rifles, semi-automatic rifles, calibers higher than .45, and any/all armor piercing rounds. Why the hell any average civilian would need any of this extra lethality is beyond me.

3) A ban of all unlicensed private sales, including/especially at gun shows.

What do you mean when you say calibers higher than .45? A 30-06's bullet is smaller than a .45's, which means it is a smaller caliber. If you mean nothing higher than a handgun round, that will have a significant impact on hunting where you need a rifle round for those longer distances. Besides that, most gun crimes are committed with handguns that are a smaller caliber.(9mm, .22, 40s&w, etc.)

[House of the Wolf]

Anyhow, a few things I think should happen:

1) A much more stringent, total permit released by every state's top police; some have this system in place (like MD), most do not.

2) A ban on all assault rifles, semi-automatic rifles, calibers higher than .45, and any/all armor piercing rounds. Why the hell any average civilian would need any of this extra lethality is beyond me.

3) A ban of all unlicensed private sales, including/especially at gun shows.

What do you mean when you say calibers higher than .45? A 30-06's bullet is smaller than a .45's, which means it is a smaller caliber. If you mean nothing higher than a handgun round, that will have a significant impact on hunting where you need a rifle round for those longer distances. Besides that, most gun crimes are committed with handguns that are a smaller caliber.(9mm, .22, 40s&w, etc.)

Spoiler:

I'm not writing legislation, just pointing out examples and starting-points. I'm in favor of banning all firearms, but I'm cordial enough to compromise on "hunting" enthusiasts--just not when they claim they need near-military grade weapons to do so.

[Archer]

I was trying to point out that one of your "starting points" wouldnt work for rifle hunters. So no, that wasnt a strawman logical fallacy.

Anyways, I am firmly against a full ban of firearms, mainly because I am a hunter. If stricter regulations were passed on military type firearms, I could care less. I just want to be able to use my lever-action to hunt, and my shotgun to skeet shoot.

[Goldbrand]

In England, hunters that use different classes of rifle have to apply for a Fire-Arms Certificate, which is issued by the police. To get it you have to fully justify why you must have the weapon, why it must be as powerful as it is, that you have a permanent place to shoot that has enough space to outlast the weapon's ballistic range, and have a full background check. Only then may you own and use that weapon, and even then you will be regularly checked up on, and will have to renew the certificate.

[Dark Lord Cam]

I was trying to point out that one of your "starting points" wouldnt work for rifle hunters. So no, that wasnt a strawman logical fallacy.

Anyways, I am firmly against a full ban of firearms, mainly because I am a hunter. If stricter regulations were passed on military type firearms, I could care less. I just want to be able to use my lever-action to hunt, and my shotgun to skeet shoot.

I have no problems with that. I only wish others shared your opinion.

[Archer]

I do to. It would make it so much better for everyone if they did.

[Da_BossMaN69]

An Ak-47 is the most produced rifle of all time, we don't produce Kalashnikov's for the military and if any are produced here, it's in semi-automatic. Chile, Cuba, and Peru all have these weapons in their arsenals, and more importantly have rampant gangs and arms dealers.

Point being, it is such a widely popular and populous weapon, that if we did ban guns, the cartels would have no problem finding and arming themselves with these weapons. And once they do, they now have a strangle hold on Fire-arm trade.

It's bad enough to know that every other joint I'll end up hitting or a bong I'll rip probably has weed in it that has come from such a brutal and terrible criminal syndication as the cartels. And yes, I have smoked this substance as well as 60% of the people I know who is my age or younger, or even older to at least post college or slightly older has done so as well.

What's my point? Weed despite being illegal is flourishing illegally and sale wise, financially. If I wanted to I could get up call up several people I know who can supply and come back with 1/8th.

Most of these sales go to either some hippie who grows, or worse the blood murdering [&@%!] who reign king in Central and South America. Why should we ban them when:
a) It will just dis-arm law abiding citizens.
b) Will just increase these gangs revenue by opening up another un-contested market. You think the gang-bangers are just going to give up buying weapons, Now in fact guns will be twice as easy to get for a criminal now since he can just go down the chain of command and get these weapons from the cartels, this in turn coupled with the money and revenue they already receive from drugs will only richen them further.

Let's forget the common sense here, in that Criminals (aka people who don't a [&@%!] about the law) will still be able to purchase these weapons and use them, only now they know any one they chose to rob or murder will be un-armed, thus making it like taking candy from a baby.

By doing this we're opening up a second market for these thugs, and the only reason these cartels get weapons from the local gun store in America is because, let's face it, it is easy to buy such weapons, which is why we need to be stricter in enforcing these rules, not go ahead an abolish it. Weapons should, could and will still be sold to the AMERICAN public, but there must be stricter gun control with better back ground checks and some sort of data-base to check how many fire-arms one has purchased.

You don't think they won't try to make money off this? Making guns will be easy for them to do if they have the right materials and schematic, with most of mexico under their control any way I'm sure the cartels could set up a factory some where.

So in conclusion, guns will not disappear after this ban, they're still out there and still able to be purchased with or without legal U.S.A. help, the thugs will still buy them, only this time the money will flow into the pockets of the Cartels.

[House of the Wolf]

There seems to be this severely-blinding ethnocentrism when it pertains to the US and firearms; there's this rampant and ill-informed notion that by banning guns here in the US, all the baddies will be able to hoard the guns for themselves. You need look no farther than across the pond to see an example of how it can work, and why we should do it.

It's been proven that the majority of the weapons these criminals and cartels have were obtained through legal means--speaking strictly of the military-grade weapons, though their handguns fall pretty much underline as well. In fact, it is (in most cases) easier to purchase an assault rifle throughout the US than it is to purchase most handguns, the reason being that authorities are (rightly) more concerned about the baddies concealing the weapon in public.

We, along with the former Soviet Union, are the problem when it comes to these weapons getting into the wrong hands, worldwide. Unfortunately, thanks to our geographical proximity, Mexico owes many of its current problems to us, in particular, because of the ease in which they've been able to obtain their military-grade weapons and build their own personal armies from that. We created the problem with our "War on Drugs", compounded it with our sale of weapons to the baddies, created more of a problem by economically screwing Mexico over, and compounded it once more by relaxing (abolishing, in many places) our bans on assault-weapons.

Comparing the banning of these types of weapons to the banning of marijuana doesn't serve any actual point; you don't grow the materials necessary to make these high-caliber rifles in your own backyard, nor do you conceal them in a little baggie, nor do you casually sell them on the street without the layman noticing. In comparison, it is extremely easy to track guns and/or their parts and ammunition. Is it a daunting task, given that there are an estimated 90 guns for every 100 people, in the US? Absolutely. But at least we'd be uprooting the people we actually should be, instead of the misguided kid staking a corner, or the increasingly more misguided suburbanite trying to be "cool" like the losers on TV.

[Da_BossMaN69]

Wolf, just stop. You clearly mis-read my post. First of all you can not purchase an assault of rifle, clearly you lack fire-arm knowledge, such weapons are banned without a proper license something that takes much time and costs much, so much so that it would be counter-productive to any gang member. Second that massive body of water called an ocean you like to call as a pond holds a country you look up to, depsite the fact it has very little gang culture or any of the racial issues that are faced in America. It never went through Slavery that was possible to allow the ghettos and slums to be created where the social Darwinism known as gangs flourish.

The point isn't whether or not a gun is easier to hide than a "dub" (bag) of weed. The point was that by banning such a market we will not stop them from gaining weapons, because:
a) their weapon of choice is so wide spread, and in fact not sold in the U.S. as it was intended for military purpose, they can acquire from any two-bit arms dealer.
b) These two-bit arms dealers can now have the option to become king-pins on firearms. The point with weed is that they have been able to build a financial empire out of it, simply by keeping it illegal. The death of Capone and boot-leggers was the end of prohibition, by making the product as accessible as walking through the front door of the store and buying it was what led to the end of these mafia syndicates, they had to adept to selling drugs. Rather than getting the info from word-of-mouth than travelling to some seedy location with sketchy individuals.
c) Weed smells, in case you didn't notice. Guns don't. I guarantee you, because I've seen it, you are more likely to smuggle a handgun through a low-security area than you are with a dub of weed, particularly if it's strong. My uncle un-knowingly did so, realized his mistake and put his gun back up since we just got out of a range.

Also here's something to look at it, in case you still think banning guns will keep these weapons out of the Cartels and Thugs hands. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... tels_n.htm

And finally, the issue here is that guns are not the only thing that can kill, and that guns do not morph it's users into killers.

Do you honestly think that banning guns will decreases the amount of deaths and murders we see? Cars kill more people than guns do in a year, should we ban cars? After all there's no constitutional right for them, they're a privileged. The amount of damage the 'Joker' of Colorado could have done would be multiplied if guns became illegal, because this sadistic [&@%!] made [&@%!] bombs, do you not understand this? So you take one weapon away from him, you now simply narrow his selection.

He could have just as easily placed on of these things in the theater and killed double the amount of people he actually did. All with the push of a button or a cellphone. An I.E.D is not difficult to make mind you.

As long as Life exists beings will kill each other, do not delude yourself into thinking that the weapon makes the killer. Because in case you don't know the world, which it seems perfectly clear you don't. Fire-arms no longer rain king as the deadliest weapons.

The worst atrocity seen in this country was committed with two commercial jet planes, not an AK47 or a glock.

You may want to say there's a difference, but there isn't the only thing there was is an act of God that allowed this vile [&@%!] to be born in the States. This kid made the conscious decision to go out and take lives. The gun in his hand did not tell him to do it, it was used to carry out his action, and be lucky he was american. If this kid with his oddly gifted intelligence was born in a country such as Afghanistan, he would be a top Al Qaeda Bomb maker, causing more harm and carnage in the world than he ever could dream of with a shot gun or rifle.

Sick people live in this world, buddy. They will kill and create chaos at will regardless of the weapon they choose. And in this day and age, the gun while being the easiest to obtain and use, is currently losing in that realm, how long will it be before bombs or I.E.D's can become as common, not very long given how sophisticated we are becoming.
And unlike a rifle or hand-gun you can't out-law a bomb. Because a bomb is not a single commercially created product, there are hundreds of items one can use. o what do we do, outlaw cell-phones because they can create an I.E.D.

People like to think building a bomb is rocket science. It isn't and because people have a hard time understanding this, whenever you hear of a bomb people always assume a professional and legitimate terrorist organization must be behind it. Look at the Middle East, you think after 10 years of the top military hunting them down and fighting that Al Qaeda still exists as it once did? No my friend it doesn't because they were an actual fighting force, they were trained soldiers from all corners of the Muslim world. Read and Do research this is a fact, they were not simple bombers.

The reality of the situation in that area of the world is this. All it takes is one man miles or so away to simply claim it was their doing, because who else would take the blame for that, not the bomber he and all his evidence is incinerated.

Tim McVeigh was an independent individual, and he used simple chemicals to make it. He got all his materials through, big shock illegal means, but unlike a gun these things are not particularly lethal on their own. Going back to the war on Terror, do you know how creative these [&@%!] are? They took a container filled half-way with rubbing alcohol and but several chlorine tablets inside. Do you know what they made, the same type of gas used in WW1 that killed millions, yes it's that [&@%!] simple. The only way it got more deadly was by increasing the size of the container, and use the metal container to burst into several shrapnel pieces.

The point this has is this. Making bombs is a relatively easy task, you just need the right materials. The reason it has not become as wide-spread in the states is because the common thug lack this knowledge. You can take away his gun, but you can't take away his viciousness, even if we lived in a gun-free world, that thug would pick up a knife or a 25lb weight to turn his body into a weapon of intimidation.

Long story short, stop taking the easy way out of this, the change starts with the person not the weapon.

[Dark Spark]

There's a little problem with mandatory psych evaluations: who'll administer them? An M.D.? Given the potentially large volume of applicants, I think those people have enough a workload dealing with actual patients rather than flashing inkblot cards all day long.

What about outsourcing that work? You know, to someone who took a three-month vocational course and picked up a certificate on the wall. Hardly inspiring confidence there...

..Okay, what about insourcing it? Some office in the County Commission, or a State-level thingy akin to the DMV. You know, a department that a politically minded governor can use to shift the bias for or against the approval of a gun permit solely through the apparatus of these psych certificates.

Texas
Evaluator: "You're in the desert when you notice a tortoise upside-down, his belly baking in the hot sun. But you're not helping him. Why?"
Applicant: "Because— I'm Shredder?"
Evaluator: "Good enough." (stamps APPROVED on form)

Massachusetts
Evaluator: "What color is the sky?"
Applicant: "Blue!"
Evaluator: "Really? Is it not red at sunset? Or gray when it's raining? Or black at night? I'm sensing an obdurate fixation with a worldview that is not in full reflection of reality. Sorry." (stamps FAILED: DO NOT RE-EVALUATE on form)

[Musicman247]

As a Texan I am appalled at your representation of those who live here.

As a person with above average intelligence I laugh at your wit.

[JockoBeans]

I was trying to point out that one of your "starting points" wouldnt work for rifle hunters. So no, that wasnt a strawman logical fallacy.

Anyways, I am firmly against a full ban of firearms, mainly because I am a hunter. If stricter regulations were passed on military type firearms, I could care less. I just want to be able to use my lever-action to hunt, and my shotgun to skeet shoot.

You will regret this pattern of thought. They will go after yours "hunting" weapons not long after they get rid of the scary military ones. Someone will get the idea that with all the modern conviences that you won't need to hunt and/or just push the fact that those animals have the same rights you do.

THOSE are the KING'S deer! You slovenly serf!

@HouseofWolf

What point? You did not have a point. The top 7 countries on that list are ones with many peoples and cultures dwelling within their borders and they have been killing each other since well before the gun. The same can be applied to the Unites States in a sense, just without the long history. Actually many of those countries have very tight gun control, Mexico in particular.

Gun crime in the United States increased after the 60's due to gun control introduced in 1968. Before that America had a fairly low rate of gun related deaths (not counting metropolises like Chicago and New York which had been havens for crime for many years and still to this day).


About Mexico:

If anyone is to blame for guns flooding Mexico it is their own government and the government of the US of A. Since 2008, the Mexican government captured around 36000 guns. Of those only about 4000 could be traced, by the ATF, to American dealers. The rest have been primarily bought from South America and Asia. Since then the numbers have risen, but only slightly.

Now notice I said dealers. Those are people who legally sell guns to American citizens. Many more have been traced to the US, but most of them were sold to Mexico by the US government. Over 9000 firearms, produced by the US, have been stolen from Mexican police forces. The Mexican military has lost even more.

So yes the United States has played a role in the chaos that has devasted Mexico, but limiting firearms of American citizens because of federal (both sides) incompetence will not solve the issue.