Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Nigel Tufnel]

So...

At what point do you think some shouldn't have the right to possess a gun.

Is there a minimum age? A minimum IQ?

Clearly, toddlers shouldn't have the right to bear arms. So - where's the cut-off age for you? 9 or so?

[Shadowferal]

Ever see a 9yr old try to buy a gun?

[Nigel Tufnel]

Ever see a 9yr old try to buy a gun?

No, but clearly a lot of Americans with the mental age of a 9yr old are allowed to buy them.

So.

Minimum IQ then?

[Shadowferal]

No, but clearly a lot of Americans with the mental age of a 9yr old are allowed to buy them. So. Minimum IQ then?

Clearly you've little idea of what goes on here beyond what the media sold you.
Try fact-checking what you're told.

[Stormdash]

So...

At what point do you think some shouldn't have the right to possess a gun.

Is there a minimum age? A minimum IQ?

Clearly, toddlers shouldn't have the right to bear arms. So - where's the cut-off age for you? 9 or so?

Seems obvious that like any civil right it fully vests at the age of majority, and is still subject to a good deal of deference before that (i.e. I think it would violate the 2nd Amendment to ban minors from shooting at a range accompanied by an adult).

[Nigel Tufnel]

Clearly you've little idea of what goes on here beyond what the media sold you.
Try fact-checking what you're told.

Here's what the media have told me today:



I laughed.

A lot.

[Deleted]

I am purposefully correcting your statement. Did France's gun laws prevent the terrorists from shooting and killing some in Paris? If you had stated gun laws can help reduce gun killings, then I would agree.

And of course in a country which the citizen's have a Constitutional right to keep and carry firearms for self defense, you are going to have more killings from shootings. Just like a country which allows it's citizens to drive automobiles, is going to have more death's from highway fatalities than if they did not.

Why is that even a question? Of course France's gun laws didn't prevent terrorists? But it prevents other crimes from happening, for instance it explains why the US has had more mass shootings in the last 10 years than all other western countries combined through the history of time. If France didn't have gun laws, we'd have seen both the terrorist attacks AND other homicides, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Exactly, if you allow your citizens to have guns, more people will die. If you prevent your citizens from having guns, less people will die.

At the end of the day of course the question is "Do the positives outweigh the negatives" When it comes to automobiles.. The positives do outweigh the negatives, a modern society can not function with automobiles, so we have to accept the fatalities related to this. We can and should do everything in our power to make sure the number is as low as possible though.

When it comes to guns, they serve absolutely no purpose in a modern society. The positives are not even close to outweighing the negatives. So they have no place in a civilized society. For the record, I believe alcohol has no purpose either. It causes enormous amounts of tragedies on so many levels and just like guns, the only "positive" is selfish enjoyment.

[Ghostpanther]

Why is that even a question? Of course France's gun laws didn't prevent terrorists? But it prevents other crimes from happening, for instance it explains why the US has had more mass shootings in the last 10 years than all other western countries combined through the history of time. If France didn't have gun laws, we'd have seen both the terrorist attacks AND other homicides, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Exactly, if you allow your citizens to have guns, more people will die. If you prevent your citizens from having guns, less people will die.

At the end of the day of course the question is "Do the positives outweigh the negatives" When it comes to automobiles.. The positives do outweigh the negatives, a modern society can not function with automobiles, so we have to accept the fatalities related to this. We can and should do everything in our power to make sure the number is as low as possible though.

When it comes to guns, they serve absolutely no purpose in a modern society. The positives are not even close to outweighing the negatives. So they have no place in a civilized society. For the record, I believe alcohol has no purpose either. It causes enormous amounts of tragedies on so many levels and just like guns, the only "positive" is selfish enjoyment.

It does not prevent mass shootings ether. How many dead before it counts as a mass shooting? And the largest number of killed in a mass shooting ( outside of a war zone ), did not happen in the US. Want to guess which country it happened in? But look, I am not against reasonable gun laws and granted, they are necessary and can help reduce crimes committed using them. And more can be done to help keep firearms out of the hands of those dangerous to citizens here.

But for many here in the US, ( which has over 17 million conceal carry licenses holders and many more who carry and do not need a license ) it is just as important function for having that right to defend ourselves with firearms, as you may consider having the right to drive a automobile. That is not going to change here. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but we are going to disagree on several points when it comes to firearms. I am just glad I live in a country which grants it's citizens certain Constitutional rights.

Firearms in the right lawful hands, can be a great equalizer for the weaker against the stronger attacker for self defense. Pepper spray, while better than nothing, is not always effective as revealed several times in the hands of police officers. And with over 300 million firearms in circulation here, to use a old phrase, the cat was let out of the bag a long time ago. Not going to be able to make that many firearms disappear by just having a law against them, like you can in some countries. We have a process to amend our Constitution and it is not based on popular opinion for a good reason.

[zenkai]

Oh so there are walls and guards around US that prevent people with guns from entering the country from Mexico?

Hey look, I just took your argument and made it to show why gun laws in the US will never work.

[Deleted]

Hey look, I just took your argument and made it to show why gun laws in the US will never work.

So by that logic, should cocaine be legalized as well? I mean if you can't stop it why bother at all right?

[zenkai]

So by that logic, should cocaine be legalized as well? I mean if you can't stop it why bother at all right?

Well since my logic was "this is why gun laws won't work"
I will say yes, my logic why drug laws don't work is just the same. People seem to get cocaine rather easily and most liberals here would argue it should be legal that we shouldn't put people in jail over it.

[Deleted]

But for many here in the US, ( which has over 17 million conceal carry licenses holders and many more who carry and do not need a license ) it is just as important function for having that right to defend ourselves with firearms, as you may consider having the right to drive a automobile. That is not going to change here. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but we are going to disagree on several points when it comes to firearms. I am just glad I live in a country which grants it's citizens certain Constitutional rights.

Firearms in the right lawful hands, can be a great equalizer for the weaker against the stronger attacker for self defense. Pepper spray, while better than nothing, is not always effective as revealed several times in the hands of police officers. And with over 300 million firearms in circulation here, to use a old phrase, the cat was let out of the bag a long time ago. Not going to be able to make that many firearms disappear by just having a law against them, like you can in some countries. We have a process to amend our Constitution and it is not based on popular opinion for a good reason.

1. Well no, it's not going to change. If it didn't change after Sandy Hook or other events I guess not. This is all about opinion of course, to be it is utterly indefensible and unimaginable how a nation can decide that all these needless deaths are worth the personal enjoyment of having a gun. But obviously you do, so what can I say.

2. What I can say about this is that no other western nation has its innocent citizens preyed upon by criminals just because they can't "defend" themselves. My country has issues with gang violence in our major cities where shootings happen every month or so, but so far not a single innocent has been shot. Only criminals shooting other criminals. The only attack on a school we've had ever the maniac had to use a sword cause he couldn't find a gun. He was unable to kill more than 2 people, all experts agree if he had had a gun, the death toll would have been several times higher. Thank god he had no easy access to guns.

3. Well Australia successfully managed to round up their guns and destroy them, the debate in Australia before the gun ban was almost identical to the one in the US, but they decided to act. Now granted I understand that it's easier to smuggle guns from Mexico into the US after a ban than it is to get them to Australia. But it's not a reason not to try save thousands upon thousands of lives in my opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Well since my logic was "this is why gun laws won't work"
I will say yes, my logic why drug laws don't work is just the same. People seem to get cocaine rather easily and most liberals here would argue it should be legal that we shouldn't put people in jail over it.

Kudos to you for being intellectually consistent. I believe guns and cocaine are basically the same thing, serves no purpose in society other than selfish enjoyment and causes extreme amounts of damage - So they should both be illegal and battled with every means possible, regardless of if it seems like an impossible task.

[Deleted]

I am purposefully correcting your statement. Did France's gun laws prevent the terrorists from shooting and killing some in Paris? If you had stated gun laws can help reduce gun killings, then I would agree.

And of course in a country which the citizen's have a Constitutional right to keep and carry firearms for self defense, you are going to have more killings from shootings. Just like a country which allows it's citizens to drive automobiles, is going to have more death's from highway fatalities than if they did not.

If you think for a minute you will realize that if we had readily available guns and assault weapons in France the situation would have been dramatic. Every single knife terrorist attack which failed or killed one person would have made headlines and ended in a bloodbath.

There are very organized terrorists who will get weapons and bombs no matter what, and even for those having tough gun laws is a huge hindrance because we have on multiple occasions arrested would be terrorists because they were in the possession of weapons, which is a big thing in the EU.

Those are a tiny fractions of the would be terrorsists.

Then you have the masses who think about doing a terrorist attack but are not bright enough to get a weapons, or just snap and attack with what they have : those guys have been attacking with knives or pathetic artisanal bombs. In the US each single one of these idiots would have been a deadly threat.

Using the Paris attacks as an exemple is disingenuous at best.

[Ghostpanther]

1. Well no, it's not going to change. If it didn't change after Sandy Hook or other events I guess not. This is all about opinion of course, to be it is utterly indefensible and unimaginable how a nation can decide that all these needless deaths are worth the personal enjoyment of having a gun. But obviously you do, so what can I say.

2. What I can say about this is that no other western nation has its innocent citizens preyed upon by criminals just because they can't "defend" themselves. My country has issues with gang violence in our major cities where shootings happen every month or so, but so far not a single innocent has been shot. Only criminals shooting other criminals. The only attack on a school we've had ever the maniac had to use a sword cause he couldn't find a gun. He was unable to kill more than 2 people, all experts agree if he had had a gun, the death toll would have been several times higher. Thank god he had no easy access to guns.

3. Well Australia successfully managed to round up their guns and destroy them, the debate in Australia before the gun ban was almost identical to the one in the US, but they decided to act. Now granted I understand that it's easier to smuggle guns from Mexico into the US after a ban than it is to get them to Australia. But it's not a reason not to try save thousands upon thousands of lives in my opinion.

- - - Updated - - -



Kudos to you for being intellectually consistent. I believe guns and cocaine are basically the same thing, serves no purpose in society other than selfish enjoyment and causes extreme amounts of damage - So they should both be illegal and battled with every means possible, regardless of if it seems like an impossible task.

When it comes to being able to defend myself with a means which is very effective and basically removes the physically stronger factor out of the equation, I really do not care what others in countries outside of the US feel. And yes, firearms are the best weapon to use for self defense if you want to stop the threat. The Founding Fathers of the US understood this principle and it is why we have the second amendment.

You can not compare Australia to the US. They have a much smaller population and more importantly, did not have a Constitution which guarantees the citizen's right to keep and carry firearms. And Mexico has very strict gun control laws. But piss poor enforcement.

Guns and cocaine are not the same thing at all. Firearms can be effective and useful for self defense. What does cocaine do for a person other than cause to destroy far more lives each year in the US than guns do?

[shimerra]

Hey look, I just took your argument and made it to show why gun laws in the US will never work.

Why is the U.S. this magical bizzario country that breaks all the rules of logic and reality in the small minds of people like yourself?

You seem to mistake people like yourself refusing/choosing not to make changes that would work or not having the will to do so because you're so afraid someone's going to jump you around every corner with it never ever being able to work.

Guns and cocaine are not the same thing at all. Firearms can be effective and useful for self defense. What does cocaine do for a person other than cause to destroy far more lives each year in the US than guns do?

And cocaine is really useful for altering your mood in a pleasant way, at least temporarily. So what? They both have huge negatives like the fact that cocaine is massively addictive and bad for your health and firearms are far more dangerous to your personal safety/health then they ever are with regards to self defense. Again you are vastly more likely to use your firearm on yourself or have it used on you, usually by someone you love/know, then ever use it to stop that big meany on the streat corner or baddie who doesn't want to rape you like your paranoid possibly coccaine addled mind thinks and just wants to take your T.V. and leave.

[RaoBurning]

[...]
but the evidence seems to be that tougher gun laws send criminals further away to get guns.

Yeah, that's fine. If the laws were more strict coast to coast then their options would be Canada, or Mexico. Which leads to:

What is the volume in cubic meters of the drug trade through the drug pipelines that happen to match up to these crime areas? Do you really believe firearms wouldn't flow along with them?

Considering a huge chunk of Mexico's guns come from the US, I'm not really that worried, no. There really isn't a reference frame in North America where the US's obsession with guns isn't the problem when it comes to gun violence.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...ryId=103224899
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...302-story.html

[Svifnymr]

Yeah, that's fine. If the laws were more strict coast to coast then their options would be Canada, or Mexico. Which leads to:



Considering a huge chunk of Mexico's guns come from the US, I'm not really that worried, no. There really isn't a reference frame in North America where the US's obsession with guns isn't the problem when it comes to gun violence.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...ryId=103224899
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...302-story.html

The caveat here of course, is the "x% of the guns submitted to ATF for tracing". They submit firearms to ATF for tracing that they believe are from the USA, so 70% of that number are from the USA. The remaining, vast majority of weapons that they do not submit for tracing are not a part of that 70%.

[Deleted]

When it comes to being able to defend myself with a means which is very effective and basically removes the physically stronger factor out of the equation, I really do not care what others in countries outside of the US feel. And yes, firearms are the best weapon to use for self defense if you want to stop the threat. The Founding Fathers of the US understood this principle and it is why we have the second amendment.

You can not compare Australia to the US. They have a much smaller population and more importantly, did not have a Constitution which guarantees the citizen's right to keep and carry firearms. And Mexico has very strict gun control laws. But piss poor enforcement.

Guns and cocaine are not the same thing at all. Firearms can be effective and useful for self defense. What does cocaine do for a person other than cause to destroy far more lives each year in the US than guns do?

Like I said, the self defense argument is moot because all similar countries that do not have guns for self defense show that citizens are several times more safe from all kinds of violence than citizens of the US. The mere presence of guns ensures that you are unsafe.

You speak of the constitution as if it's an argument in itself "What the constitution says is always correct because it is the constitution" You know who else on the planet reason like this? Islamic fundamentalists. A very dangerous reasoning indeed. The constitution is flawed, it was written by flawed men a long time ago in a time extremely different from today.

Cocaine makes people feel good, why should you decide what free adults can or cannot enjoy? Your argument that cocaine destroys more lives isn't valid at all, because even if gun deaths would surge to overtake cocaine, overtake trafic fatalities, overtake all other fatalities in the entire country - you would still defend it. So arguments about degrees of suffering are made invalid by yourself.

[Ghostpanther]

Like I said, the self defense argument is moot because all similar countries that do not have guns for self defense show that citizens are several times more safe from all kinds of violence than citizens of the US. The mere presence of guns ensures that you are unsafe.

You speak of the constitution as if it's an argument in itself "What the constitution says is always correct because it is the constitution" You know who else on the planet reason like this? Islamic fundamentalists. A very dangerous reasoning indeed. The constitution is flawed, it was written by flawed men a long time ago in a time extremely different from today.

Cocaine makes people feel good, why should you decide what free adults can or cannot enjoy? Your argument that cocaine destroys more lives isn't valid at all, because even if gun deaths would surge to overtake cocaine, overtake trafic fatalities, overtake all other fatalities in the entire country - you would still defend it. So arguments about degrees of suffering are made invalid by yourself.

It is for myself. And I do not care what other countries do in regards to them allowing their citizens to have firearms. Their country, their business. And you do know a victim of a violent attack, does not care about statistics or how many others have not had a attack on them.

Here in the US, the Constitutional right to keep and carry firearms, is the only reason I need to exercise that right. It insures such right is not based on popular opinion or some single judge. And yes, it has been amended down thru the years and can still be. But I am not aware of any Bill of Rights being taken away. Only adding more citizens to be covered by it. And since your are not a US citizen, your opinion is nothing more than that and has no bearing on it's effectiveness here. Meanwhile, I get to exercise my opinion every day.

So does several other illegal drugs make you feel good. Apart from weed ( which should be legal for medical applications ), they all are illegal for good reasons and yes, do destroy many lives. The illegal dealers of the hard core drugs, in my opinion, should be executed. Because for all practical reasons, they are mass murderers.

Studies have shown that cocaine use speeds up HIV infection. According to research, cocaine impairs immune cell function and promotes reproduction of the HIV virus. Research also suggests that people who use cocaine and are infected with HIV may be more susceptible to contracting other viruses, such as hepatitis C, a virus that affects the liver https://www.drugabuse.gov/publicatio...gfacts/cocaine

[Coolthulhu]

Like I said, the self defense argument is moot because all similar countries that do not have guns for self defense show that citizens are several times more safe from all kinds of violence than citizens of the US. The mere presence of guns ensures that you are unsafe.

Except that's an assumption drawn under false pretenses. There are millions of guns in European countries, too, and in some cases they are subject to less restrictions than in the US - there might be no absurd assault weapons law, for instance, or no 20/10 magazine restrictions, or both. Sure, the overall number of guns is lower because it's a lot difficult to get the appropriate licenses; the background checks are merciless, the psychiatric evaluations very thorough, one has to attend courses both theorical and practical and pass an exam etc., but "gun control" does not mean "no guns". The regions in which I live and work, in particular, have two of the highest numbers of guns per household in the whole of Europe, and it's one of the safest to live in as well. Coincidence?