Gun Control Debate thread

[Donutz]

Originally Posted by Capita2JZGTE

To the person that said the USA has a bigger number of mass Shootings than Canada; Of course we do. Your looking at a population of 311,591,917 vs a population of 34,482,779. Not to mention a huge difference in demographics and other statistical data as well.

That was me and I also pointed out that the difference was far more than 10:1 . It's a PER CAPITA difference as well as an absolute difference in numbers.

"other statistical data" doesn't cut it. That's just a brush-off. "difference in demographics" isn't an explanation, it's just a label. But it could lead to an explanation.

Again, I'm not trying to claim that the difference IS due to gun laws. I'm simply pointing out that there IS a difference, and all those who claim that the mass shootings AREN'T caused by gun ownership but don't attempt to explain what IS causing it have a credibility issue. All you're really doing right now is metaphorically hopping from foot to foot yelling "It IS NOT! It IS NOT! I'm not LISTENING! LALALALALLAAAAAAAH!"

And to forestall the inevitable "we're not obligated to explain it", no you're not. But if you don't make the attempt, the gun control lobby is going to win by default.

[killclimbz]

Originally Posted by Donutz

That was me and I also pointed out that the difference was far more than 10:1 . It's a PER CAPITA difference as well as an absolute difference in numbers.

"other statistical data" doesn't cut it. That's just a brush-off. "difference in demographics" isn't an explanation, it's just a label. But it could lead to an explanation.

Again, I'm not trying to claim that the difference IS due to gun laws. I'm simply pointing out that there IS a difference, and all those who claim that the mass shootings AREN'T caused by gun ownership but don't attempt to explain what IS causing it have a credibility issue. All you're really doing right now is metaphorically hopping from foot to foot yelling "It IS NOT! It IS NOT! I'm not LISTENING! LALALALALLAAAAAAAH!"

And to forestall the inevitable "we're not obligated to explain it", no you're not. But if you don't make the attempt, the gun control lobby is going to win by default.

This is more or less the point. Gun enthusiast better come to the table on this one, or the gun control lobby is going to make the rules. This one set this shit in motion and you can bet there are going to be changes. If you don't want to talk about it, sit back and see what happens.

[Capita2JZGTE]

Originally Posted by Donutz

all those who claim that the mass shootings AREN'T caused by gun ownership but don't attempt to explain what IS causing it have a credibility issue. All you're really doing right now is metaphorically hopping from foot to foot yelling "It IS NOT! It IS NOT! I'm not LISTENING! LALALALALLAAAAAAAH!"

How about this? Statistics show that guns are used in self defense apprx. 2 million times a year, saving atleast but not limited to one person per use. In 2010, 8,775 murders were caused by someone using a firearm.http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/new...crime-us-state
Also in 2010 there was a total of 12996 murders.

Basically, what I'm saying is that in 2010, more lives were saved by firearms than were taken by firearms. Even the total number of murders in general wasn't even close to overcoming the amount of people saved by using firearms in self defense.

You also asked what is causing these mass murders if not guns? I guess I hadn't mentioned that point because I thought it was obvious.
IMO the problem is clinically insane people going out and killing people. Which is a healthcare issue IMO. If these insane people didn't have guns, then they would still be able to mass murder. If guns didn't have crazy people to operate them, then they literally can't kill anyone(accidental discharges excluded). It's not the guns doing the killing. Gun's are merely a tool. These people who have clear psychiatric problems need to be addressed more and need to be taken serious. Not just prescribed a huge dose of anti depressants and then forgot about.

Even if guns were banned you could never get rid of all of them. So thinking that getting rid of them will remedy the problem is absolute nonsense. Who cares how hard it is for a criminal to get a gun, if the end result is them getting a gun and mass killing people who were defenseless? The fact that it was hard for him to get that gun would have made absolutely no difference. He was dead set on doing what he did, and he would have found a way to carry out his plan regardless, and the fact that people ignore this is beyond me.

[EatRideSleep]

Originally Posted by StreetDoc

If you look at all of these shootings there are a couple things that are a common theme:

They all occur in gun free zones

They all occur by people who are mentally ill

And the majority of the gunmen/killers are male.

Politics | Mother Jones
"Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass murders* carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. ... Forty three of the killers were white males. Only one of them was a woman. (See Goleta, Calif., in 2006.)"


Women own guns, so mass shootings can't be entirely blamed on the "ownership" reason/issue.


This is Gallup poll stat is from 2011 and based on self-reported ownership:

"The percentage of women who report household gun ownership is also at a new high, now registering 43%."
Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993

[Sassicaia]

Originally Posted by Capita2JZGTE

How about this? Statistics show that guns are used in self defense apprx. 2 million times a year, saving atleast but not limited to one person per use. In 2010, 8,775 murders were caused by someone using a firearm.http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/new...crime-us-state
Also in 2010 there was a total of 12996 murders.

Basically, what I'm saying is that in 2010, more lives were saved by firearms than were taken by firearms. Even the total number of murders in general wasn't even close to overcoming the amount of people saved by using firearms in self defense.

You also asked what is causing these mass murders if not guns? I guess I hadn't mentioned that point because I thought it was obvious.
IMO the problem is clinically insane people going out and killing people. Which is a healthcare issue IMO. If these insane people didn't have guns, then they would still be able to mass murder. If guns didn't have crazy people to operate them, then they literally can't kill anyone(accidental discharges excluded). It's not the guns doing the killing. Gun's are merely a tool. These people who have clear psychiatric problems need to be addressed more and need to be taken serious. Not just prescribed a huge dose of anti depressants and then forgot about.

Even if guns were banned you could never get rid of all of them. So thinking that getting rid of them will remedy the problem is absolute nonsense. Who cares how hard it is for a criminal to get a gun, if the end result is them getting a gun and mass killing people who were defenseless? The fact that it was hard for him to get that gun would have made absolutely no difference. He was dead set on doing what he did, and he would have found a way to carry out his plan regardless, and the fact that people ignore this is beyond me.

What it doesnt say is how many of those self defense situations were people protecting themselves from over people with guns (which im guessing is the case more often then not). What that says is the problem is already seriously code red. Carrying guns as a solution to control a gun problem is stupid beyond belief. In fact, didnt virgina tech allow students to carry guns after that shooting? FYI.... the whole world did one of these when that was announced.

[Donutz]

Originally Posted by Capita2JZGTE

You also asked what is causing these mass murders if not guns? I guess I hadn't mentioned that point because I thought it was obvious.
IMO the problem is clinically insane people going out and killing people. Which is a healthcare issue IMO.

I actually brought up this possibility somewhere else -- that it comes down to the lack of a social safety net in the USA. Of course, that would start the whole left wing/right wing/socialism debate up again. Anyway, it's a possibility but that's all it is until and unless it's studied properly. And unfortunately it looks to me from the outside that the gun lobby works to block any serious study of this issue, just in case it doesn't go their way.

Originally Posted by Capita2JZGTE

Even if guns were banned you could never get rid of all of them. So thinking that getting rid of them will remedy the problem is absolute nonsense. Who cares how hard it is for a criminal to get a gun, if the end result is them getting a gun and mass killing people who were defenseless? The fact that it was hard for him to get that gun would have made absolutely no difference. He was dead set on doing what he did, and he would have found a way to carry out his plan regardless, and the fact that people ignore this is beyond me.

The trouble with this argument is that you're describing EXACTLY the situation in Canada (sorry to keep bringing up Canada, guys, but that's where I live so that's what I know). And the thing is, most of the time the crooks just kill each other. Yes, sometimes innocent people get caught in the crossfire (like this year in Toronto), but here's the thing -- if you count all mass killings in Canada AND include all deaths by collateral damage in gang hits, and compare it to mass killings by loonies ONLY in the USA, it's STILL way off in terms of absolute or per capita numbers. We're better off than you. I'm far less likely to be shot than you. Period.

Also, just to clarify something... Guns aren't BANNED in Canada. I can buy a pistol or a rifle or a shotgun or whatever. Maybe not an AK47, but then I'm not sure that's justifiable anywhere. But in Canada, I'm not allowed to carry it around in my pocket. If I shoot someone, "self defense" doesn't cut it unless I can prove that my life was in imminent danger, and even then I'd be in some serious shit. This does have some downsides --- like when we hike Seymour in the summer, it'd be nice to have more than bear spray. What's the old joke? How do you identify bear shit? It smells of pepper and has bells in it.

[Capita2JZGTE]

Originally Posted by Sassicaia

Carrying guns as a solution to control a gun problem is stupid beyond belief

Jesus dude you are MISSING the point. There is no gun problem. There is a problem with clinically insane people committing these murders. How is that so hard to understand?
And so what if some of those self defense cases weren't against other humans?
The fact that they were able to use a tool to save their life should be enough reason.

The problem with you anti gun people is that you refuse to accept the fact that these bad people will use any tool they can to accomplish their agenda, whether it's a knife, a bat, a box cutter, a commercial jet, etc.

And donuts I respect your opinion, but I strongly disagree with you throwing out the possibility of demographics coming into play, per capita or not, it does make a difference in peoples mindset and personality as a whole.

[Sassicaia]

Originally Posted by Snowolf

You are in error here. A hand gun has a place and is a tool just like a rifle is. I backpack in the wilderness in Grizzly Bear habitat. I carry a Ruger Super Black Hawk .44 Magnum revolver. In 1983 while hiking in the Bob Marshal Wilderness of Montana I and a friend were attacked by a Grizzly. I fired 3 shots and killed the bear. Had I not had that hand gun, I and my friend would very likely have been killed. This bear had been tagged and when we reported the incident to the Montana Fish and Game, their records showed that this was a transplanted park bear from Glacier who had shown aggressive behavior towards humans.

So, you will never ever in a million years convince me that handgun does not have a legitimate place in the back country as a tool for personal protection. Could a hunting rifle done the same or even better job? in this case yes it could have but there are cases where it would not. In a tent attack at night for example. In another case in Alaska, a Grizzly attacked a family in a tent. One family member with a handgun in the tent mortally wounded the bear and while it did not die immediately, it stopped the attack and saved the life of the family. In the confines of the tent, a rifle could not be wielded effectively.

Another very legitimate case for handguns can be made in the realm of personal protection from criminals. Do you even have any clue how many women have used a small handgun in a purse to protect themselves from rape, assault and murder? Its actually quite a lot. Cops cannot always be at your side or respond fast enough to prevent an attack. Citizens should have the means to protect themselves and a handgun is an appropriate tool for this.


Now having said that, I am not an NRA type gun nut and while yes I do own guns and generally support a person`s ability to own a firearm including a handgun, I also think that gun lobby has totally driven the crazy train off of the fucking track!

I do not support all out gun bans and confiscation but I am also of the opinion that gun ownership needs to be a privilege not an unquestioned right. This fruitcake was obviously mental yet he legally purchased these weapons. That is bullshit and it is time to implement some serious gun control regulation in this country.

Now, unlike the utility uses for a handgun like I mentioned, I cannot come up with a valid, logical use for these Ar-15`s AK-47`s and other semiautomatic high magazine capacity weapons. They are not effective hunting weapons, unlike a handgun they are not ideal home defense weapons. The "because I want one and its my right" argument is just too weak in light of recent events. It is time to get these things off of our streets, period.

Now for those who cite crime rates in places like Chicago as proof that gun control does not work, consider this. Acquiring a gun 50 miles away in a neighboring state or even county is easy and negates the effectiveness of a gun restriction like this. A nut job can easily acquire a gun this way. A national gun restriction makes acquiring a prohibited firearm a whole hell of lot harder to acquire and this is going to have an impact on these types of crimes. The average nutjob like this piece of shit is not nearly as likely to acquire a gun like this from an international black market but if all he has to do is drive to another county, it becomes pointless. The effectiveness of any gun regulation must be national.

So, while I do think there is a legitimate utility purpose (including self defense from criminals) for gun ownership including handguns, I think we need to seriously regulate that privilege better. There is no reason on earth this freak should have been allowed to poses a firearm based on his know personality disorders. We do not need 50 round clips for any gun and I could argue that a 15 round magazine is plenty adequate for any legitimate use of a firearm.

As a gun owner myself, I accept and welcome sensible gun regulation and even from a Constitutional standpoint I believe the government has the right to regulate guns. The first part of the amended reads "A well regulate militia.." It`s pretty clear in my book that the second amendment itself has language that allows the government to regulate firearms.

And I am sorry but the people who think gun ownership keeps the government from being tyrannical is in my opinion delusional. One company of US special forces can wipe out every so called militia with ease. What is Barney Buttfuck in Alabama going to do with his AR-15 against 1 Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt. Keep the government from becoming tyrannical? Really? Give me a fucking break!

On paper that sounds great, but in practice its not worth it. If it means allowing hand guns for everyone in order to protect 1 or 2 (2 in north america last year) people killed by bears a year i say let the bears win.

We have Bears in canada too, and its never a problem here for people to carry bear riffles and not hand guns.

I agree with everything else you wrote.

BTW the news is reporting that the kid didnt buy a gun, but rather took his mothers. Mind you the news sux and that could be wrong. I havent read an update since yesterday. Either way hand guns are not a must, and my point still stands. They are simply not needed outside military use.

[Bones]

Originally Posted by Capita2JZGTE

:i.
Just look at the comment above you talking about the Japanese Admiral. It's not made up.

And yet the Japanese attacked anyway, the armed citizenry wasn't a deterrent.

My whole point is the risk/reward question. The likelihood of an attack defeating the US military and requiring an armed population to repel it versus the risk of 10,000 gun related deaths annually should such an event not occur.

Obviously, you believe that ongoing risk to be worth the potential reward. I do not.

[Capita2JZGTE]

Originally Posted by Sassicaia

Either way hand guns are not a must, and my point still stands. They are simply not needed outside military use.

Snowboards are not a must either. Apprx. 40 people die a year. Should be ban recreational winter sports because people are dieing from them?
39,000 Americans died from vehicle accidents in 2010. FAR more than the amount of homicides where firearms were used. Automobiles are also "not needed". Why don't we ban those as well? See how ridiculous these laws sound when they actually apply to a hobby or item that you use and love?
I guarantee you have a million arguments on why they shouldn't be banned and I'm sure they are all legitimate. But so are the reasons for allowing handguns and other rifles to remain legal.
You don't blame drunk driving deaths on vehicles, you blame them on the drunk retards going around driving.
How is this not relative to insane people going around killing people, who happen to be using firearms? How is it then blamed on the firearms and not the people using them?

Bones, the quote was "You cannot attack MAINLAND America, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass."
Japan did not attack mainland America they strategically attacked a small island (Hawaii) where 90% of our naval power resided.