Time to discuss gun regulation in the US?

[ugotownd]

If the only purpose of a knife was to kill people then yes, they should be banned as well.

Well the whole purpose of a gun isn't to kill humans. It's used for hunting to feed a necessity of life for example. So I guess your banning ideas go out the window.

[Vyragosa]

If the only purpose of a knife was to kill people then yes, they should be banned as well.

Point taken.

[Marxman]

There is no elegant solution to the gun problem in the United States, that's why it's still a problem. You can't just repeal the 2nd amendment, because that just makes it harder for people to own guns for legal reasons (though the necessity for guns for defense/sport in the first place is overstated and non-sensical, in my opinion). Criminals already have guns. This does nothing to stop them. The cat is out of the bag so to speak. Europe has successful gun control laws because there have been gun control laws for decades. The US has had VERY leniant gun laws for decades. Gun proliferation makes any solution involving banning firearms an act in futility. Then there's the whole "if you repeal one part of the constitution, the whole thing falls apart" argument, which is also overstated but somewhat valid I guess.

My solution is actually taken from a stand-up comic, but it's not a terrible idea honestly. Ammunition is currently dirt cheap. Like, ridiculously cheap. What if ammunition was HEAVILY taxed? Like, say, 20 times the current price. Look at the tax on cigarettes from some states. I've heard cigarettes are $100 a carton in places in the northeast. That certainly steers a lot of folks away from smoking, right?

The bottom line is, no solution can stop a crazy person from hurting people if he's determined to do so. But we make it very easy for them to accomplish that goal in this country right now.

[Kulanae]

If the only purpose of a knife was to kill people then yes, they should be banned as well.

Well problem solved then because the only purpose of guns is not to kill people.

[timmyotoole]

Guns don't kill people, it's the person who shoot the guns that kills WITH the gun. If tomorrow a freak enters a mall with a butter knife and kill 10 people by cutting their throat will you say that knife needs to be prohibited as well? you said it first CRAZIES have guns. I have lots of friends and family that have guns in the US and Canada and they never killed anyone, besides deer and mooses they where hunting. When you walk to the gun shop the gun isn't killing you is it? When it falls into wrong hands it can be dangerous as any other thing the human being will touch. Look cars, they are use to drive right? Put that in the hands of someone who's drunk and hit someone? What happens? Blame the car? Maybe make the rule more severe yes but prohibition will make it way worst.

Hand guns and assault weapons are for killing people and, for a minority, playing with on a range.

As has been put forward many times there aren't many countries that wouldn't at least start a serious dialogue about gun control. Unfortunately the US citizenry has weird idea that they need to be able to protect themselves from their government and would be able to do so; as if a handgun would pose a threat to a tank. Its a bit ironic that the right to bear arms comes from a time when said arms were both much less powerful and actually a credible defence against tyranny.

[Gothicshark]

20+ kids die in an elementary school...

...and all everyone seems to care about are Guns.

I hope the Ice Age comes faster than later...

30,000 gun related deaths in the USA every year, 10,000 Gun Related Murders every year. 2 of the largest spree killings this year, 4-5 spree killings this year.

I think it is time to question the sanity of the current situation.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...-with-firearms
# 1 South Africa: 31,918
# 2 Colombia: 21,898
# 3 Thailand: 20,032
# 4 United States: 9,369

[PizzaSHARK]

No, that's perfect logic. More guns in the US means more gun-related violent crimes. That's the point.

No, you aren't understanding - how are you going to use that data to prove that guns are the cause of these violent crimes? Would these violent crimes still happen if the guns were not available? You're missing the forest for the trees, here.

The NRA and the gun fanatics will have you believe that more guns = less crime. That's simply not the truth.

Citation Needed. I don't think there's enough long-term evidence that doesn't disregard other factors to say whether or not guns cause or prevent violence.

Try to explain how Japan has such a low gun-related crime rate compared to the US. It comes down to the fact that there are less guns. Now, how could having less guns in the US be a bad thing? Because gun-related crimes would drop?

Because Japan has fewer guns? Duh? If there are fewer guns, there will be fewer gun-related crimes. I don't see how this is important, however. Again, you need to be looking at violent crime rates versus violent crime rates. Japan is significantly lower there, too, but I don't think you can place that on we-have-guns-they-don't. Japan and America are very, very different culturally.

Japan also has one of the highest suicide rates in the first world. Maybe this is due to them having all those swords! We should ban swords, less swords mean fewer suicides! America doesn't have many swords, and they also have a lower suicide rate, therefore it's very clear that sword ownership results in a higher suicide rate!

See how silly that argument is? That's the same argument you're making here with guns and violence/violent crimes.

[Matchu]

Well problem solved then because the only purpose of guns is not to kill people.

You should perhaps tell that to everyone who died in all the wars from gunshot wounds.

Knives aren't made to kill people nor to defend them. Guns however...

[Quacko]

This false notion that discussing what works in Iceland (or some other obscure nearly non existent population by comparison) country should be addressed and considered for the USA because ya know... the two countries are so fucking similar and laws are just so god damn universal that what works in one place surely works the best every where!

If that's the case, then good job installing dictatorsh....I mean democracies to other countries.

Also, some guy was going on about he won't live in fear of anything. You have your guns because you are afraid, if you weren't afraid of anything you would have NO NEED for the weapon.

Not to mention the argument of "If you're not American, you have no say on the issue". Great argument right there, by that logic anyone living outside of parts of Ethiopia where people starve to death daily should have no say on how their government runs the country.

I see some people have 4 or 5 guns...why do you need so many guns? Would love an explanation on this.

[Kulanae]

It's also over 200 years old. A written embodiment of the law of the land? Sounds good. The idea that it is somehow untouchable and immutable? Sounds bad.

I know someone's about to shout "there's 27 Amendments damn it". Yes, good. But really it's the first 10 (and perhaps the wording of the document) that really causes tension. And the idea that you can never, ever alter those 10 seems odd.

And SCOTUS has just recently ruled on the scope of gun ownership in the US and reafirmed the rights of citizens to own firearms. There is a well defined process of amending the Constitution. Why is it people for stricter gun "regulations" never want to discuss using it?

[Adamas102]

Look at the full statistics, not just gun statistics. How many people were killed with knives? How many women were raped, comparatively. What is the actual CRIME RATE, not the firearms crime rate. Cause yes, a place that allows firearms is going to have more firearm related crimes than one that does not, but what is the overall crime rate? Is overall crime reduced, or increased, for places where firearms are banned. England, Wales, and Australia are all TOP of the list for overall violent crime rate, and they ban guns. Mexico is also highly ranked, they have much stricter gun control laws than we do.

Also, look at the annual statistics for firearm related murders vs cases where a firearm was used in self-defense. Here's a hint-the number of self-defense cases are far, far higher, they just aren't "newsworthy".

Wait wait wait... So you want to argue that our lower crime rate (not actually true) and higher murder rate is better in comparison that higher crime/lower murder? What kind of fucked up logic is that? Homicide rates in the US are almost three times higher than those of any other comparable country. Hell, for statistics up to 2010, you could literally ignore all gun related homicides in the US and we STILL had a higher homicide rate. Doesn't matter whether or not you're more likely to get mugged in London. The disparity in the murder rates is ridiculous.

[gutnbrg]

Gun laws are not the reason for mass murders, the reason behind murders are psychotic individuals. If guns were banned all thru out the U.S there would still be ample amounts of weapons, including guns, readily available to anyone at anytime.

[Kulanae]

You should perhaps tell that to everyone who died in all the wars from gunshot wounds.

Knives aren't made to kill people nor to defend them. Guns however...

Knives were made to hunt. So were bows. So were spears. So were guns.

All of these weapons can also be used for the purpose of killing humans.

[Matchu]

Would these violent crimes still happen if the guns were not available?

Because it's a hard hypothesis to prove since it's just...a hypothesis. A (very) brief look at data seems to say that non-firearm violent crime is at similar levels in countries that have stricter controls as in America. Thus, the gun numbers take the American total for violent crimes higher.

[Matchu]

Knives were made to hunt. So were bows. So were spears. So were guns.

All of these weapons can also be used for the purpose of killing humans.

Except we don't live in caves and 99% of the people in the Western world aren't animal hunters. The general populace uses knives for cutting their food, not savagely stabbing their dinner before dragging it back to their hovel.

What else do guns do except get pointed at people?

[Bladed]

Bowling For Columbine is a great documentary about exactly this, I recommend watching it for some useful/interesting insight on this issue

I quite literally fell out of my chair laughing at this. Has to be the best joke I've heard in a long, long time.

[Jackielope]

It's also over 200 years old. A written embodiment of the law of the land? Sounds good. The idea that it is somehow untouchable and immutable? Sounds bad.

I know someone's about to shout "there's 27 Amendments damn it". Yes, good. But really it's the first 10 (and perhaps the wording of the document) that really causes tension. And the idea that you can never, ever alter those 10 seems odd.

The 10 can be altered. Amendment 4 is a prime example. It looks like all of the exceptions made to it have been made by the Supreme Court though.

But yeah, it is historically difficult to change amendments and such.

[lvlark]

In response to the recent shootings at both the Connecticut elementary school and the Oregon Mall, wouldn't you agree that it's about time to discuss severely limiting gun freedom and firearm possession in America?
I just think that there *might* be some form of correlation between gun-sales and possession and shootings when the countries with the least number of people shot per year are also the ones with the tightest legislation and the least armed police officers...

If you ask me, it's ALWAYS time to discuss regulating firearms, or pretty much anything else that has basically been designed to harm other living people (I know though, hunting and such). I mean, a society wanting to protect themselves wouldn't want too much of those things around?
On the other hand, I am NOT American, and thus not part of that society so don't have too much right to take part in that discussion. Nor am I sure this is the correct place anyhow.
And also, it's probably been said time and time before and again, but the correlation you imply isn't so black-and-white. Going off of Bowling for Columbine, Canada is an example to the contrary. Most Canadians that do have firearms, I guess, have/use them for hunting, not for self defense.

[Gothicshark]

Unfortunately, criminals tend to ignore laws.

That is the height of ignorant propaganda.

Since the NRA loves to claim criminals use illegal weapons. How do they get illegal weapons?

They steal legally purchased weapons from family. Last two spree killings fall in this group.
They have family and girl friends purchase weapons for them. Popular with Gang members.
They buy from pawn shops with fake IDs.
They buy from drug dealers who get the weapons from kids who steal from their family.

These are the most common ways guns get in the hands of criminals.

[Kulanae]

If that's the case, then good job installing dictatorsh....I mean democracies to other countries.

Also, some guy was going on about he won't live in fear of anything. You have your guns because you are afraid, if you weren't afraid of anything you would have NO NEED for the weapon.

Not to mention the argument of "If you're not American, you have no say on the issue". Great argument right there, by that logic anyone living outside of parts of Ethiopia where people starve to death daily should have no say on how their government runs the country.

I see some people have 4 or 5 guns...why do you need so many guns? Would love an explanation on this.

Well you might have a .308 for general hunting. You might have something bigger for hunting larger game like Elk or bear. You would also have to legally carry a side arm in most states while hunting bear. You might have a shotgun for hunting fowl. And you probably would have a .22 and a 9mm for range use.

One of the major problems is that most Europeans have lost all concept of hunting because you no longer have the land in which to do it.