another shooting in San Bernadino CA

[SoulMonster]

3,500 people die every year from drowning.

Let's ban swimming pools!!!!

This is a typical diversion. Another is to compare stricter gun laws to banning cars because, you know, people die in car accidents. It's a borish argument, really.

The issue here is not to ban every thing that kill humans, but to ban those things that have been designed for the sole function of killing people and seem to have only a negligible benefit to society. "Would we be better off without them?" is the control question you have to apply, Apollo, to figure out if something should be more strictly regulated, not "Is there a possibility that its use will result in casualties?" To be all complicated on you I guess what we are talking about is a simple cost-benefit analysis. Basically, what are the benefits of this thing, what are the costs, and what is the net result of such an analysis? Does it come out as a positive thing or a negative thing? I am pretty certain that for swimming pools and cars the answer is that the benefits by far outweighs the costs. But for things like land mines, ricin, antrax and assault weapons, it is not so clear cut. No wait, in my opinion it is still clear cut: Society would be far better off without them. Except for hunting (which will probably still be allowed with any reasonable limitation to gun access), sense of personal safety (which could to some degree still be possible -- unless your own feeling of safety depends on having assault weapons readily available), and shooting as a hobby (which again would still be possible albeit with less/different weapons) I really don't see any problems with stricter gun laws. And hopefully a FEW THOUSAND people less would die every year (!).

[classicrawker]

The fact that people are seriously arguing whether less guns would result in less gun violence, is positivelly absurd. It is perfectly fine for people to go, "It is more important for me to collect guns than to prevent the 84,000 gun injuries that happen here in USA every year" or "I am willing to sacrifice 11,000 of my fellow citizens for me to be able to feel slightly more protected". I mean, these are all valid opinions. But just be honest about being a selfish prick who is willing to sacrifice thousands for your own for a warped sense of "freedom" or "safety". Man up to it. This ridiculous "guns don't kill people", "it's freedom", "it's the American way", and references to outdated laws and other similar excuses are nothing but diversions from the very simple fact that if US implemented stricter guns laws, like not allowing Joe and Jill to easily get their hands on assault weapons, then the amount of gun violence in that country would significantly drop. That is the issue here.

The real questions is does anyone really need and assault rifle for self or home protection? Nobody here is proposing a total ban on guns but does the average Joe need access to assault weapons?

[downzy]

The fact that people are seriously arguing whether less guns would result in less gun violence, is positivelly absurd. It is perfectly fine for people to go, "It is more important for me to collect guns than to prevent the 84,000 gun injuries that happen here in USA every year" or "I am willing to sacrifice 11,000 of my fellow citizens for me to be able to feel slightly more protected". I mean, these are all valid opinions. But just be honest about being a selfish prick who is willing to sacrifice thousands for your own for a warped sense of "freedom" or "safety". Man up to it. This ridiculous "guns don't kill people", "it's freedom", "it's the American way", and references to outdated laws and other similar excuses are nothing but diversions from the very simple fact that if US implemented stricter guns laws, like not allowing Joe and Jill to easily get their hands on assault weapons, then the amount of gun violence in that country would significantly drop. That is the issue here.

The real questions is does anyone really need and assault rifle for self or home protection? Nobody here is proposing a total ban on guns but does the average Joe need access to assault weapons?

Apparently the Courts agree that assault-rifle bans are constitution, as the ban was recently upheld in lower courts and the case was not chosen for review by the Supreme Court:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-wont-review-laws-banning-so-called-assault-weapons/2015/12/07/b562678e-96fb-11e5-94f0-9eeaff906ef3_story.html

[SoulMonster]

The fact that people are seriously arguing whether less guns would result in less gun violence, is positivelly absurd. It is perfectly fine for people to go, "It is more important for me to collect guns than to prevent the 84,000 gun injuries that happen here in USA every year" or "I am willing to sacrifice 11,000 of my fellow citizens for me to be able to feel slightly more protected". I mean, these are all valid opinions. But just be honest about being a selfish prick who is willing to sacrifice thousands for your own for a warped sense of "freedom" or "safety". Man up to it. This ridiculous "guns don't kill people", "it's freedom", "it's the American way", and references to outdated laws and other similar excuses are nothing but diversions from the very simple fact that if US implemented stricter guns laws, like not allowing Joe and Jill to easily get their hands on assault weapons, then the amount of gun violence in that country would significantly drop. That is the issue here.

The real questions is does anyone really need and assault rifle for self or home protection? Nobody here is proposing a total ban on guns but does the average Joe need access to assault weapons?

Is that even a question that needs to be asked?

I am sure there are quite a few who have assault weapons because it makes them feel safer. Personally I would think they are a bit unwieldy for home protection, not to mention the danger of hurting people you love, or bystanders, with high-capacity rounds blasting through walls. A simple hand gun, like a pistol, would probably be much more suitable for such close quarter, cramped posing and fighting.

But the thing here is of course that they actually feel more secure with massive firepower readily available. And you can't really argue with real feelings. The sad truth is unfortunately that every weapon bought for home protection is far more likely to be used for the wrong purposes, as the weapons trickle into the wrong hands, or the owner himself become unstable. So the feeling of security is completely misplaced. For every assault weapon acquired, USA becomes less safe as the number of gun injuries and deaths increase.

Edited December 7, 2015 by SoulMonster

[downzy]

3,500 people die every year from drowning.

Let's ban swimming pools!!!!

This is a typical diversion. Another is to compare stricter gun laws to banning cars because, you know, people die in car accidents. It's a borish argument, really.

The issue here is not to ban every thing that kill humans, but to ban those things that have been designed for the sole function of killing people and seem to have only a negligible benefit to society. "Would we be better off without them?" is the control question you have to apply, Apollo, to figure out if something should be more strictly regulated, not "Is there a possibility that its use will result in casualties?" To be all complicated on you I guess what we are talking about is a simple cost-benefit analysis. Basically, what are the benefits of this thing, what are the costs, and what is the net result of such an analysis? Does it come out as a positive thing or a negative thing? I am pretty certain that for swimming pools and cars the answer is that the benefits by far outweighs the costs. But for things like land mines, ricin, antrax and assault weapons, it is not so clear cut. No wait, in my opinion it is still clear cut: Society would be far better off without them. Except for hunting (which will probably still be allowed with any reasonable limitation to gun access), sense of personal safety (which could to some degree still be possible -- unless your own feeling of safety depends on having assault weapons readily available), and shooting as a hobby (which again would still be possible albeit with less/different weapons) I really don't see any problems with stricter gun laws. And hopefully a FEW THOUSAND people less would die every year (!).

It's a terrible argument. Likening swimming pools to assault rifles is to suggest that the only purpose of a swimming pool is to drown oneself or others.

[classicrawker]

The fact that people are seriously arguing whether less guns would result in less gun violence, is positivelly absurd. It is perfectly fine for people to go, "It is more important for me to collect guns than to prevent the 84,000 gun injuries that happen here in USA every year" or "I am willing to sacrifice 11,000 of my fellow citizens for me to be able to feel slightly more protected". I mean, these are all valid opinions. But just be honest about being a selfish prick who is willing to sacrifice thousands for your own for a warped sense of "freedom" or "safety". Man up to it. This ridiculous "guns don't kill people", "it's freedom", "it's the American way", and references to outdated laws and other similar excuses are nothing but diversions from the very simple fact that if US implemented stricter guns laws, like not allowing Joe and Jill to easily get their hands on assault weapons, then the amount of gun violence in that country would significantly drop. That is the issue here.

The real questions is does anyone really need and assault rifle for self or home protection? Nobody here is proposing a total ban on guns but does the average Joe need access to assault weapons?

Is that even a question that needs to be asked?

I am sure there are quite a few who have assault weapons because it makes them feel safer. Personally I would think they are a bit unwieldy for home protection, not to mention the danger of hurting people you love, or bystanders, with high-capacity rounds blasting through walls. A simple hand gun, like a pistol, would probably be much more suitable for such close quarter, cramped posing and fighting.

But the thing here is of course that they actually feel more secure with massive firepower readily available. And you can't really argue with real feelings. The sad truth is unfortunately that every weapon bought for home protection is far more likely to be used for the wrong purposes, as the weapons trickle into the wrong hands, or the owner himself become unstable. So the feeling of security is completely misplaced. For every assault weapon acquired, USA becomes less safe as the number of gun injuries and deaths increase.

I hear you soul but in reality the only real chance for some regulation would be with assault rifles as there will never be a complete ban on personal ownership of guns here in the U.S. as long as we remain a Democracy......

[downzy]

The fact that people are seriously arguing whether less guns would result in less gun violence, is positivelly absurd. It is perfectly fine for people to go, "It is more important for me to collect guns than to prevent the 84,000 gun injuries that happen here in USA every year" or "I am willing to sacrifice 11,000 of my fellow citizens for me to be able to feel slightly more protected". I mean, these are all valid opinions. But just be honest about being a selfish prick who is willing to sacrifice thousands for your own for a warped sense of "freedom" or "safety". Man up to it. This ridiculous "guns don't kill people", "it's freedom", "it's the American way", and references to outdated laws and other similar excuses are nothing but diversions from the very simple fact that if US implemented stricter guns laws, like not allowing Joe and Jill to easily get their hands on assault weapons, then the amount of gun violence in that country would significantly drop. That is the issue here.

The real questions is does anyone really need and assault rifle for self or home protection? Nobody here is proposing a total ban on guns but does the average Joe need access to assault weapons?

Is that even a question that needs to be asked?

I am sure there are quite a few who have assault weapons because it makes them feel safer. Personally I would think they are a bit unwieldy for home protection, not to mention the danger of hurting people you love, or bystanders, with high-capacity rounds blasting through walls. A simple hand gun, like a pistol, would probably be much more suitable for such close quarter, cramped posing and fighting.

But the thing here is of course that they actually feel more secure with massive firepower readily available. And you can't really argue with real feelings. The sad truth is unfortunately that every weapon bought for home protection is far more likely to be used for the wrong purposes, as the weapons trickle into the wrong hands, or the owner himself become unstable. So the feeling of security is completely misplaced. For every assault weapon acquired, USA becomes less safe as the number of gun injuries and deaths increase.

I hear you soul but in reality the only real chance for some regulation would be with assault rifles as there will never be a complete ban on personal ownership of guns here in the U.S. as long as we remain a Democracy......

The United States did have an assault rifles ban between 1994 and 2004. It has happened before, but considering how much more politicized the issue is nowadays, who knows if would happen again.

The great irony of course is that the law-and-order conservative base was at one time in favour of gun limitations. Back in the 1960s when there was a rise in gun-related crime rates within the African American community, many prominent conservatives called for greater gun restrictions. Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of the modern day conservative moment, was a fierce defender and promoter of a ban on assault weapons.

[Len Cnut]

​Your argument seems to be that a "free society" and the right to own any style or firearm are two mutually inclusive propositions. They're not. It's a value judgement that you yourself and others of like mind are making. It's no more a truism than stating that owning a Mercedes equals happiness.

I disagree.

​This idealized and romantic notion that rights enumerated under the U.S. constitution can't be curtailed or limited without sacrificing their de jure spirit is baseless. Context, de facto application, and nuance all plays a part in how rights are applied and exercised. The U.S. constitution demands for freedom of speech and due process, but in practice those rights find themselves limited when and where necessary. What I find odd is that the nuanced application of the first and fourth amendments relating to free speech and due process becomes lost when it comes to the second amendment for gun advocates. Why do most NRA members support the Patriot Act that greatly curtailed a person's right to privacy and their right to due process but limiting ammunition clip size is violation of the Constitution and a threat to freedom and liberty? It's arbitrary bullshit and complete nonsense.

I don't know enough about the American constitution to comment here with much I'm afraid, all the specifics about the ammendments and all that, I wouldn't know, nor is my position so deeply entrenched in an understanding of American politics, i feel the same way about guns in any country.

​The other fallacy common place, particularly in your post, is gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of the opposing argument. Most gun regulations proposed by lawmakers in the United States would still allow grandpa to own his hunting rifle. That's not what the discussion is about. The greater concern is limiting the access to those who shouldn't have guns (and to a lesser extent, limiting the destructive power of certain types of guns). But you can't even have that conversation in the U.S. without the NRA threatening the political careers of current legislators. It's all fear-based demagoguery that's utterly devoid of reason or reality.

Do you mean to say that the people on the pro side of the fence are actively arguing for guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them?

Moreover, it's divorced of what's feasible or realistic. The suggestion that more time and energy should be focused on addressing the mentally ill is all fine and good, but it's an impractical solution to a straight forward problem (one that doesn't present itself in other nations like it does in the United States).

Perhaps it's the difficult but right way as opposed to the easy and wrong way? In the way that it's easy to beat a child than it is to raise it (read that in a Morgan Freeman voice )

Here is the reality: 40 percent of gun purchases in the United States occur in the secondary market where there is no background check. 80 percent of former inmates obtain their guns through these secondary markets. But when you propose changing the laws to close this loophole, you have the usual suspects argue that it wouldn't do anything and would lead to the eventual ban of all gun sales and ownership in the United States. These are not reasonable or grounded arguments and frankly, those who make those arguments shouldn't be taken seriously or have their opinions considered. They're not being genuine, do not care about facts and figures, and are speaking from a place of fear.

Fear or what? Do you not think that restrictive practice also comes from a place of fear?

Furthermore, let's drill down on the concept of "psychos." One in every two women killed with a gun is killed by an intimate partner. Some times the "psycho" doesn't present itself until certain conditions arise.

Right but thats a social issue, thats behavioural shit, so put in place efforts to fix that shit, instead of banning guns. You can sit here and ask me 'well what exactly?', i couldn't tell ya, I'm not a doctor but at the same time i shouldn't have to have the solution to be able to point out that there's a problem.

​And for what? Some fantasize notion of "freedom?"

I'm not sure I like the way we speak about freedom.

​Again, this idealized notion of freedom and its association to firearm possession has real world consequences. You can't argue that you are a humanitarian while suggesting a free society is one that allows unhindered access to guns. That's a contradiction in terms if I've ever heard one.

Again with that sideways talk about freedom, what is wrong with freedom? Freedom makes these societies worth living in, freedom is ABSOLUTELY everything, you wanna try living in a country that don't have these freedoms then talk to me, and i don't mean just the right to own guns but thats certainly part of a broader pictures. A humanitarian is someone who cares about the welfare of the human race, well i don't think the human race will fare well without freedom, in fact it's the slippery slope to bidding farewell to the human race. we cannot and must not be dictated to by fear. I believe the advancement of the human race is achieved through freedom, i believe American society has provided a SHITLOAD to the modern world, culturally they have contributed SO much and they have done it without a Downzy or a Len swinging their dicks at em telling em which way is up.

It's a rocky road but human history has been and still is a rocky road, the path to a better world through the proliferation of ideas of freedom is absolutely imparitive to my world view, you talk about idealising freedom, fuck yes I idealise freedom, the world should idealise freedom, it is one of the few things in this world that i believe should be a fundamental ideal of every nation on earth, i don't think restrictive practise is the path to a better world and the overall betterment of the human race.

You also talk about how folks are like, only shouting for certain rules to be put in place and the other side are tripping cuz to them it's the beginning of a slippery slope to the overall banning of all guns but y'know, they ain't stupid and i don't think you are either, tragedies happen, we shit our pants to get to 'oh, we need SOME restrictions', then 10 years down the trough something else happens and we shit our pants some more and tighten up and tighten up until guns are totally banned, there's a prescedent for this shit in other countries, this whole thing of 'oh we're just saying restrictions, yous are just tripping thinking its gonna end up in total banning' thats a politician line but people ain't stupid, people have foresight.

We fly and float across the world offering our ideals of freedom and free will to people, least we could do is follow through. Unless it's all bullshit.

​It's not a matter of the U.S. being a bigger country. Granted, it's a more violent country, and even if all proposed gun laws were enacted the nation would still likely lead in that category on a per-capita basis. But the occurrence of gun death in the U.S. when compared to other countries underscores how much of an outlier the nation is. To suggest that there's not a causal relation between the most lax gun laws in the developed world and the most gun-related deaths in the developed world is absurd. If you're fine with such high human costs required for your concept of freedom, how in God's name do you call yourself a humanitarian?

Because i don't believe in harming a member of the human race, whether physically or through the restriction of their freedom, which i believe harms the evolution of mankind, in the same way that muslim countries where a woman can't walk the streets without a burka or alcohol and dancehalls are banned etc etc etc, now thats an extreme example obviously but to me it's the restriction of freedoms, it belongs on the same bubble albeit on opposing sides.

Y'know when we'll have a better world? When as many people have the means to harm each other to hand as possible but as few as possible do. Now it's not my job to sit here on an internet forum and concieve a new tao, a new way that is gonna put this shit in place, perhaps it's a hard road, perhaps a couple of centuries more of evolution are required, i don't know, I'm not a psychic but i do know that the ends there are worthy ends, a lot more worthy that a neutered society where you can't smoke, eat red meat, sugars bad for you, guns are bad for etc etc etc, a society where you have to be led by the nose and told whats good for you and told what you can or can't do cuz you might be a psycho. And you can say this is stretching the shit but i seriously think restrictive practise of this nature are the first few trickles of that flood.

And this Patriot Act thing, the idea that, OK, freedoms are selectively curtailed under certain circumstances anyway, so what are you saying, because America, like every other nation, ain't got it perfect then we should just engage in this regressive act where, OK, they're limited there are under certain circumstances which means the entire thing is a joke so fuck it, lets just start restricting shit left right and centre? That don't make much sense to me. The very fact that you're associating this shit with the Patriot Act, a restrictive practise which is to the detriment of the sorts of freedoms we're discussing suggests that, unless you're in support of the Patriot Act then you know what I'm talking about, restricting gun laws belongs in the same category as the restrictions of the patriot act i.e. they shouldn't exist.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Len B'stard

[shades]

I really don't know who you are quoting there Lenny, and the truth is it probably doesn't and shouldn't matter to the conversation.

But to respond to "his" or "hers" point ad nauseam ,

Maybe "we" meaning those against gun control need to spell out what we actually mean a little slower, because he or she is obviously not only missing our point

but putting words in our mouths.

WE don't believe that gun control of any kind will stop any of this violence, none, nadda, zip, read my lips.

So therefor the slippery slope of banning assault weapons is just too risky.

That being said, some of us, me for instance, do think there should be a ban on assault weapons for an entirely different reason. Mine personally is I don't see any reason

for anyone to own one, therefor even the slightest chance that it may stop just one mass killing is worth the ban.

But I'm not going to jump on the side of those wishing to ban weapons, because I think the majority of them, if given their way would eventually push for an all out ban.

AND

Furthermore I worry this intention because they have to be smart enough to realize that a person bent on mass murder can either get his hands on one illegally and or find

another way to carry it out. I guess I am saying be honest enough to admit that, and maybe we can take you more seriously.

[Len Cnut]

Personally I'm all for assault weapons too.

[downzy]

Do you mean to say that the people on the pro side of the fence are actively arguing for guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them?

They do when they argue against universal background checks and people on the no fly list should be legally allowed to purchase a gun. Sure, many who advocate for gun rights might suggest otherwise, that they do indeed support universal background checks, but how intense are they in that position? Apparently not enough to vote for a candidate who would actually vote such a proposition into law.

Perhaps it's the difficult but right way as opposed to the easy and wrong way? In the way that it's easy to beat a child than it is to raise it (read that in a Morgan Freeman voice )

It's the suggestion made by those who don't genuinely support lowering gun violence through limitations on gun ownership. It's a smoke screen. As CR pointed out in his post, the suggestion is often made by those who also want to cut the social safety net to the bone. Moreover, there hasn't been any serious proposals on how to actually implement what is suggested (nor how it wouldn't violate other rights). Does taking medications for depression disqualify you from owning a gun? How does that information get communicated to the appropriate agencies without harming a person's right to privacy? Again, the arguments around mental health are not made in earnest.

Here is the reality: 40 percent of gun purchases in the United States occur in the secondary market where there is no background check. 80 percent of former inmates obtain their guns through these secondary markets. But when you propose changing the laws to close this loophole, you have the usual suspects argue that it wouldn't do anything and would lead to the eventual ban of all gun sales and ownership in the United States. These are not reasonable or grounded arguments and frankly, those who make those arguments shouldn't be taken seriously or have their opinions considered. They're not being genuine, do not care about facts and figures, and are speaking from a place of fear.

Fear or what? Do you not think that restrictive practice also comes from a place of fear?

No, they're made using comparative analysis using facts and statistics. The United States isn't the only country on the planet. Other countries have shown that there are other ways to handle various political matters. And on gun violence and ownership, most nations have chosen policies that allow for gun ownership while limiting the collateral damage. The United States has chosen the opposite and the resulting carnage is the direct consequence of such policy choices.

Right but thats a social issue, thats behavioural shit, so put in place efforts to fix that shit, instead of banning guns. You can sit here and ask me 'well what exactly?', i couldn't tell ya, I'm not a doctor but at the same time i shouldn't have to have the solution to be able to point out that there's a problem.

Yeah, there's a problem alright, but too often we have those against common sense gun control laws (see Shades post directly above this one) that dismisses basic reality. The problem I described above gets partly solved by instituting a universal background check. But you can't have a serious conversation in today's highly partisan climate. Basic realities are ignored and ridiculous logic is employed to counter any sensible policies. Very few people are advocating the elimination of guns, but that's all gun rights people hear when you suggest smaller clip sizes or universal background checks that include the secondary gun markets.

I'm not sure I like the way we speak about freedom.

But that's what it is. No man is an island unto himself. Decisions made by one can greatly affect another. We live in a society where one man or woman's decision to own a gun can have a direct effect on another person's own life and prosperity. There is often too much emphasis placed on the freedom to and little concern for freedom from. You argue that you have a right to own a gun. I saw I have a right to not be shot by it. So we come up with some rules to allow you to own a gun while minimizing my risk to be injured by it. The coin of freedom has two sides and yet your opinion seems to be strictly concerned with only one side.

Again with that sideways talk about freedom, what is wrong with freedom? Freedom makes these societies worth living in, freedom is ABSOLUTELY everything, you wanna try living in a country that don't have these freedoms then talk to me, and i don't mean just the right to own guns but thats certainly part of a broader pictures. A humanitarian is someone who cares about the welfare of the human race, well i don't think the human race will fare well without freedom, in fact it's the slippery slope to bidding farewell to the human race. we cannot and must not be dictated to by fear. I believe the advancement of the human race is achieved through freedom, i believe American society has provided a SHITLOAD to the modern world, culturally they have contributed SO much and they have done it without a Downzy or a Len swinging their dicks at em telling em which way is up.

It's a rocky road but human history has been and still is a rocky road, the path to a better world through the proliferation of ideas of freedom is absolutely imparitive to my world view, you talk about idealising freedom, fuck yes I idealise freedom, the world should idealise freedom, it is one of the few things in this world that i believe should be a fundamental ideal of every nation on earth, i don't think restrictive practise is the path to a better world and the overall betterment of the human race.

You also talk about how folks are like, only shouting for certain rules to be put in place and the other side are tripping cuz to them it's the beginning of a slippery slope to the overall banning of all guns but y'know, they ain't stupid and i don't think you are either, tragedies happen, we shit our pants to get to 'oh, we need SOME restrictions', then 10 years down the trough something else happens and we shit our pants some more and tighten up and tighten up until guns are totally banned, there's a prescedent for this shit in other countries, this whole thing of 'oh we're just saying restrictions, yous are just tripping thinking its gonna end up in total banning' thats a politician line but people ain't stupid, people have foresight.

We fly and float across the world offering our ideals of freedom and free will to people, least we could do is follow through. Unless it's all bullshit.

Again, there's nothing wrong with freedom, but given the complexities of modern life yours is a connotation that is far too simple without dangerous consequences. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. There's context, nuance, and the distinction between de facto and de jure. There is a trade off between Joe Smith getting to own whatever gun he wants and Joe Johnson not getting gun down by one of Mr. Smith's weapons. Again, freedom to versus freedom from. We have far stricter gun laws in Canada but almost nobody of note here is calling for the abolishment of gun ownership. Slippery slope is an illogical fallacy and when you're argument depends on one you're not grounded in reason. Sure, say the U.S. bans assault weapons and ten years later something else happens and others call for more restrictions. But that doesn't mean they will be granted (nor should they). It's a measure of balancing the rights of some with the rights of others.

[bran]

The fact that people are seriously arguing whether less guns would result in less gun violence, is positivelly absurd. It is perfectly fine for people to go, "It is more important for me to collect guns than to prevent the 84,000 gun injuries that happen here in USA every year" or "I am willing to sacrifice 11,000 of my fellow citizens for me to be able to feel slightly more protected". I mean, these are all valid opinions. But just be honest about being a selfish prick who is willing to sacrifice thousands for your own for a warped sense of "freedom" or "safety". Man up to it. This ridiculous "guns don't kill people", "it's freedom", "it's the American way", and references to outdated laws and other similar excuses are nothing but diversions from the very simple fact that if US implemented stricter guns laws, like not allowing Joe and Jill to easily get their hands on assault weapons, then the amount of gun violence in that country would significantly drop. That is the issue here.

this will probably be my last post on the matter since this thread is basically the same as every gun thread on this forum. guns will never be banned in the us, people outside the us don't understand but that is the reality. the reason "assault weapons"(which arent assault weapons) havent been banned is because everytime this comes up their definition of "assault weapons" would end up with the banning of most semi automatic hunting rifles. lets also not forget the guns used in this incident were illegal anyway.....

i think even the "less guns= less death" argument is faulty. people said when the "assault weapons" ban ended in 2004 that there would be huge increase in body counts in the streets and it never happened gun deaths are down almost 50% since 1993 and it still continues to do so and there is far more guns in the US now than there were then. as for the "selfish prick" line. is hillary clinton a selfish prick for being surrounded by armed guards 24/7? what is the difference if joe schmoe carries a weapon for his protection or if hillary clinton has someone do that for her? politicians who think up these laws live in a complete fantasy land. they are filthy rich, live in gated communities, surrounded by armed guards 24 hours a day. they have nothing to worry about since nothing pertains to them, they get to whatever the fuck they want to us peasants but ask them to do the same, fuck no they are better than us.

even with all of that say guns were magically banned you think the problems go away? drugs are illegal in the US, punishable by heavy sentences. for instance 4 grams of heroin in states in the US will land you in prison for life... yet there is a heroin epidemic growing in the US. why? because cartels are powerful in mexico and our boarder policy is a joke.

guns are smuggled in and out of mexico by the hundreds daily, guns are now being made with 3d printers, and you are still going to have people who have the urge to kill and the criminals will still have the guns. the jihadists are still going to find a way to get powerful weapons, you think there contacts overseas dont have contacts here that dont have a shit ton of weapons? the psychotic fucks will still find a way to get guns, getting guns from the black market is easy and incredibly cheap.

you want to fix most gun violence?

- better background checks(checks should be universal, and all should be done federally)

- close the loopholes on guns when it comes to gun shows and personal sales, i have to get a background check when buying a gun everyone should have to, even if the guns are used or not

- legalize drugs(more people will die in chicago and detroit in the last 2 years alone than people killed in mass shooting since the 1980s combined)

- fix the boarders(huge amounts of guns and drugs are coming in and out of mexico daily, small time dealers in poor areas, this is the only way to make money and survive, so they join gangs to help protect themselves from other dealers/gangs, which leads to people shooting each other over drug turf. legalize the drugs, regulate them and sell them in secure stores, this gets rid of most of the criminal element)

- fix mental health(this one is the most difficult since companies and individuals are making a shit ton of money over pumping people full of mind altering meds, but this needs to be fixed)

that is pretty much all i have to say on this, lenny nailed it on the freedom front, other than that it feels like this thread just goes in circles.

[downzy]

The fact that people are seriously arguing whether less guns would result in less gun violence, is positivelly absurd. It is perfectly fine for people to go, "It is more important for me to collect guns than to prevent the 84,000 gun injuries that happen here in USA every year" or "I am willing to sacrifice 11,000 of my fellow citizens for me to be able to feel slightly more protected". I mean, these are all valid opinions. But just be honest about being a selfish prick who is willing to sacrifice thousands for your own for a warped sense of "freedom" or "safety". Man up to it. This ridiculous "guns don't kill people", "it's freedom", "it's the American way", and references to outdated laws and other similar excuses are nothing but diversions from the very simple fact that if US implemented stricter guns laws, like not allowing Joe and Jill to easily get their hands on assault weapons, then the amount of gun violence in that country would significantly drop. That is the issue here.

i think even the "less guns= less death" argument is faulty. people said when the "assault weapons" ban ended in 2004 that there would be huge increase in body counts in the streets and it never happened gun deaths are down almost 50% since 1993 and it still continues to do so and there is far more guns in the US now than there were then.

True, gun related deaths are down, but that doesn't mean there is less gun violence. The reality is that doctors and first responders are getting better at treating gun shot victims and saving lives:

According to the most recent survey data available from the CDC, the rate of nonfatal gunshot injuries has risen about 20 percent since 2001, from 22 incidents per 100,000 people to 27 incidents in 2013. Even more striking is that the rate of gunshot wounds that require hospitalization (rather than treatment and release from an emergency center), has gone up by more than 50 percent since 2001. In other words, people are now surviving from many of the more dangerous wounds that would have killed them in previous years. There were roughly 9.4 hospitalizations per 100,000 people for nonfatal gun injuries in 2001, compared to more than 14 per 100,000 in 2013, according to the CDC.

...

Experts say there are several possible explanations for the rise in gunshot victims survival rates, the mostly likely being that trauma care has dramatically improved in recent years. For one thing, there are more trauma centers than ever before, allowing first responders to quickly reach victims and bring them to emergency rooms. And once patients get to a trauma center, the likelihood that they survive is also far greater due to improved emergency medicine and triage services.

https://news.vice.com/article/gun-deaths-have-plummeted-in-the-us-but-that-doesnt-mean-theres-less-gun-violence?utm_source=vicenewsfb

[downzy]

Came across this article a few minutes ago that makes the same point I was trying to maker earlier (though does a much better job):

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/12/second_amendment_allows_for_gun_control.html

"When determining what regulations on speech are acceptable, the Supreme Court carefully weighs the significant value of protecting the freedom of expression against the countervailing public interests. Thus you certainly have a right to protest, but not in a public park without a permit. You have a right to exclaim your beliefs, but not with a sound truck at night in a residential neighborhood. You have a right to express yourself through art, but not with a can of spray paint on someone else’s car. Child pornography is indisputably a type of speech, yet the Supreme Court gives it no constitutional protection, zero, because the court believes that the harm it inflicts on the abused children far outweighs any expressive value...

The same is true of our freedom to exercise our religions. The court has held (in an opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia) that as long as a government regulation applies to everyone equally and does not target a particular religious group, many general laws that infringe on religious practices are nonetheless constitutional. Thus, if your religion involves the use of a banned hallucinogen like peyote, as was the situation in the Supreme Court case involving members of the Native American Church, your constitutionally protected right to freely exercise your religious beliefs takes a back seat to the state’s interest in uniform drug laws.

The Second Amendment, of course, is no exception. In the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court told us that we have a constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense, at least within our homes. But the opinion never suggested that this right was unconditional or immune from all regulation. In fact, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said just the opposite. In Heller, he specifically said that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”"

This point expressed by Justice Scalia is what I've been trying to get to most of the day. Contrary to the opinions of some, rights are not unlimited in practice nor in spirit. They generally cease when the general public good jeopardized. It's the basic litmus test for the application of said rights. Arguments that the United States is a glorious example of unbridled individual freedom fail to understand the historical jurisprudence that has underscored the nation's legal system for over two hundred years.

As the author clearly argues, it's not a matter of whether the Constitution would allow for even the most egregious gun regulations, but a matter of political will and priorities:

"Protecting the right to keep and bear arms is not the same as forbidding all regulations on that right. We can protect that right and still require background checks, permits, and training. We can still regulate when, where, and what kinds of guns are allowed. In some cases, we can regulate who can obtain guns, imposing restrictions on, for instance, felons, the mentally ill, and known terrorists. We can ban firearms such as military-style assault weapons that (like child pornography) plainly cause far more harm than they add in value. We can require those who are negligent with their weapons (as we do those who are negligent with their words in defamation cases) to be held liable for the harm they inflict on others. We can do all of these things; we just don’t. There might be policy reasons to debate the pros and cons of specific regulations, but there’s no reason to assume that there is a constitutional problem."

[SoulMonster]

The fact that people are seriously arguing whether less guns would result in less gun violence, is positivelly absurd. It is perfectly fine for people to go, "It is more important for me to collect guns than to prevent the 84,000 gun injuries that happen here in USA every year" or "I am willing to sacrifice 11,000 of my fellow citizens for me to be able to feel slightly more protected". I mean, these are all valid opinions. But just be honest about being a selfish prick who is willing to sacrifice thousands for your own for a warped sense of "freedom" or "safety". Man up to it. This ridiculous "guns don't kill people", "it's freedom", "it's the American way", and references to outdated laws and other similar excuses are nothing but diversions from the very simple fact that if US implemented stricter guns laws, like not allowing Joe and Jill to easily get their hands on assault weapons, then the amount of gun violence in that country would significantly drop. That is the issue here.

The real questions is does anyone really need and assault rifle for self or home protection? Nobody here is proposing a total ban on guns but does the average Joe need access to assault weapons?

Is that even a question that needs to be asked?

I am sure there are quite a few who have assault weapons because it makes them feel safer. Personally I would think they are a bit unwieldy for home protection, not to mention the danger of hurting people you love, or bystanders, with high-capacity rounds blasting through walls. A simple hand gun, like a pistol, would probably be much more suitable for such close quarter, cramped posing and fighting.

But the thing here is of course that they actually feel more secure with massive firepower readily available. And you can't really argue with real feelings. The sad truth is unfortunately that every weapon bought for home protection is far more likely to be used for the wrong purposes, as the weapons trickle into the wrong hands, or the owner himself become unstable. So the feeling of security is completely misplaced. For every assault weapon acquired, USA becomes less safe as the number of gun injuries and deaths increase.

I hear you soul but in reality the only real chance for some regulation would be with assault rifles as there will never be a complete ban on personal ownership of guns here in the U.S. as long as we remain a Democracy......

I don't think anyone here is advocating a complete ban on guns. Perhaps just a similar control as seen in other modern, advanced socities?

[SoulMonster]

The fact that people are seriously arguing whether less guns would result in less gun violence, is positivelly absurd. It is perfectly fine for people to go, "It is more important for me to collect guns than to prevent the 84,000 gun injuries that happen here in USA every year" or "I am willing to sacrifice 11,000 of my fellow citizens for me to be able to feel slightly more protected". I mean, these are all valid opinions. But just be honest about being a selfish prick who is willing to sacrifice thousands for your own for a warped sense of "freedom" or "safety". Man up to it. This ridiculous "guns don't kill people", "it's freedom", "it's the American way", and references to outdated laws and other similar excuses are nothing but diversions from the very simple fact that if US implemented stricter guns laws, like not allowing Joe and Jill to easily get their hands on assault weapons, then the amount of gun violence in that country would significantly drop. That is the issue here.

this will probably be my last post on the matter since this thread is basically the same as every gun thread on this forum. guns will never be banned in the us, people outside the us don't understand but that is the reality. the reason "assault weapons"(which arent assault weapons) havent been banned is because everytime this comes up their definition of "assault weapons" would end up with the banning of most semi automatic hunting rifles. lets also not forget the guns used in this incident were illegal anyway.....

i think even the "less guns= less death" argument is faulty. people said when the "assault weapons" ban ended in 2004 that there would be huge increase in body counts in the streets and it never happened gun deaths are down almost 50% since 1993 and it still continues to do so and there is far more guns in the US now than there were then. as for the "selfish prick" line. is hillary clinton a selfish prick for being surrounded by armed guards 24/7? what is the difference if joe schmoe carries a weapon for his protection or if hillary clinton has someone do that for her? politicians who think up these laws live in a complete fantasy land. they are filthy rich, live in gated communities, surrounded by armed guards 24 hours a day. they have nothing to worry about since nothing pertains to them, they get to whatever the fuck they want to us peasants but ask them to do the same, fuck no they are better than us.

even with all of that say guns were magically banned you think the problems go away? drugs are illegal in the US, punishable by heavy sentences. for instance 4 grams of heroin in states in the US will land you in prison for life... yet there is a heroin epidemic growing in the US. why? because cartels are powerful in mexico and our boarder policy is a joke.

guns are smuggled in and out of mexico by the hundreds daily, guns are now being made with 3d printers, and you are still going to have people who have the urge to kill and the criminals will still have the guns. the jihadists are still going to find a way to get powerful weapons, you think there contacts overseas dont have contacts here that dont have a shit ton of weapons? the psychotic fucks will still find a way to get guns, getting guns from the black market is easy and incredibly cheap.

you want to fix most gun violence?

- better background checks(checks should be universal, and all should be done federally)

- close the loopholes on guns when it comes to gun shows and personal sales, i have to get a background check when buying a gun everyone should have to, even if the guns are used or not

- legalize drugs(more people will die in chicago and detroit in the last 2 years alone than people killed in mass shooting since the 1980s combined)

- fix the boarders(huge amounts of guns and drugs are coming in and out of mexico daily, small time dealers in poor areas, this is the only way to make money and survive, so they join gangs to help protect themselves from other dealers/gangs, which leads to people shooting each other over drug turf. legalize the drugs, regulate them and sell them in secure stores, this gets rid of most of the criminal element)

- fix mental health(this one is the most difficult since companies and individuals are making a shit ton of money over pumping people full of mind altering meds, but this needs to be fixed)

that is pretty much all i have to say on this, lenny nailed it on the freedom front, other than that it feels like this thread just goes in circles.

Some comments:

- No one is arguing for a complete ban of guns. This is a diversion.

- It is perfectly possible to to ban certain assault weapons and still allow semi-automatic hunting weapons. This is being achieved elsewhere...

- Hillary Clinton has a very dangerous job where there is an ACTUAL threat to her life that must be taken seriously. Most US citizens don't.

- No one is arguing that all gun injuries woudl disappear if stricter gun control was enforced. We are talking about reducing the number down to "normal" levels. I have said this explicitly before. Again, this is a diversion.

- Yes, reducing the number of guns in circulation WILL reduce the number of gun injuries and deaths. We have plenty of comparative studies on this form similar countries. Don't be confused by the complicating changes in gun violence treatment, frirst responder success, etc.

[Len Cnut]

America ain't about to change their constitution for no fucker anyway so And God bless em i say. Y'know what'd piss me off though? When you read all these opinings from people abroad (i know, look whoose talking eh? ) and they adopt this snotty attitude and way of referring to their constitution and their rights and the things that they obviously hold dear in this sort of sideways way, these sort of sneering references to 'the american way' and 'your outdated such and such', this awful snotty superior attitude towards an entire peoples and their way of life, it kinda shows them up for where they are coming from with their opinions and perfectly outlines why their perspective will never be taken on board over in America, because they are coming from a perspective of disrespect, if i was an American I'd want to smack them in the fucking mouth. Because I mean it's got to be deliberate hasn't it, people know full well what Americas constitution and way of life means to people in America, it just has to be deliberate, the insulting tone...and based on that why should they fuckin' take your opinion on board? Nobody likes to have the piss taken out of their country or out of themselves and if you care to have an opinion and be part of a discourse (i.e. be taken seriously and engage in a meaningful back and forth) try and not being so fuckin' patronising about it because if Americans are so thick and they dunno whats goin' on and their all fuckin' way of life is so outdated and backward well then perhaps there's something to be said for the outdated and backward cuz last time i checked they had the biggest dicks on the international political scene.

Honestly, the world goes around cannibalising American culture, to where you got kids in fuckin' England and all over Europe and Asia or whatever talking and dressing like American kids but every time something jumps off over there the entire world crowds together on one side, points and goes 'oh my Goooood, those Americans!'. People need to work on their people skills is what I'm saying.

[DieselDaisy]

They put American politics on our news channels like we're supposed to be interested. You never see other countries' elections covered. Usually they are dismissed in a world news section. You never see intensive coverage of Shinzo Abe's Liberal Democratic Party swooping to victory in the Japanese elections, yet you get intensive coverage of all of these Clintons and Bushes and idiots. And do the Americans cover the British elections haha? ''America eagerly awaits the outcome of the Conservative leadership contest''.

[bran]

They put American politics on our news channels like we're supposed to be interested. You never see other countries' elections covered. Usually they are dismissed in a world news section. You never see intensive coverage of Shinzo Abe's Liberal Democratic Party swooping to victory in the Japanese elections, yet you get intensive coverage of all of these Clintons and Bushes and idiots. And do the Americans cover the British elections haha? ''America eagerly awaits the outcome of the Conservative leadership contest''.

IIRC at least cnn covered the british elections rather closely.

[Len Cnut]

The fact is we (not me and you but i mean the nation) are interested or it wouldn't be there...hence discussions like this one, it's kinda ridiculous actually, I agree with what you're saying. A bunch of people from Hartlepool weighing in on the validity of American electoral candidates

[DieselDaisy]

Strangely I've never met too many British people in real life (i.e. not on the internet) who care about the subject of American politics. I find the coverage of it in Britain completely disproportionate to the general interest level. Some of the Guardian readers perhaps feign interest because of the reasons you have cited, that America should be something they should be criticising but deep down in their hearts, they don't care really? We should at least cover other countries' elections equally. How about the French situation which has seen a huge swing to the right; that certainly has more repercussions on Britain than the results of Trump (whose second name is a grandma term for flatulence) with the wig and the endless parade of Clintons and Bushes.

Edited December 8, 2015 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

I suppose cuz Americas a country whoose politics, or at least international policy, has a chance of having a significant bearing on us and/or the world scene so it gets the most focus, were this the times of Rome they'd be covering Rome. But you're right, other countries are kind of ignored. Like Belgium, i never knew Belgium had some big Islamist problem until i read it on this forum. And thats had a bearing on the world scene recently eh?

[bran]

I suppose cuz Americas a country whoose politics, or at least international policy, has a chance of having a significant bearing on us and/or the world scene so it gets the most focus, were this the times of Rome they'd be covering Rome. But you're right, other countries are kind of ignored. Like Belgium, i never knew Belgium had some big Islamist problem until i read it on this forum. And thats had a bearing on the world scene recently eh?

it really depends on what station you watch for news, i watch a lot of pbs news which covers the world. most channels like abc and cbs will touch on world news as well, while fox news, cnn and msnbc usually stick to partisan politics here at home.

[Len Cnut]

Yeah, American television coverage must be pretty broad, for all the channels and that you have. I heard you get EVERY English football match over there...we don't even get that.

[DieselDaisy]

I hate that term, ''world news''. It is a dumping ground, isn't it, like the ''world cinema'' section in films (read, films that ''Anglophonic thick twats cannot understand'').

Edited December 8, 2015 by DieselDaisy