If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On July 22 2012 22:04 yeint wrote:
This is a pointless discussion based on a kneejerk reaction that blames lack of gun control for the recent killing spree.

The gun situation in the United States is not as simple as "well let's introduce really strict gun control, or ban them altogether!".

After literally centuries of constitutionally guaranteed gun rights, the amount of firearms already in the hands of the public is so huge that any ban will not even put a dent in the availability of illegal weapons.

It's also a gross oversimplification to think that these things wouldn't happen if strict gun laws were introduced. School shootings have happened in Finland, where legal gun ownership is highly controlled. Gun ownership is insanely high in Switzerland, yet there have been no school shootings there. If we were to start a society from scratch, with no worries about what has happened in the past, yes, it may well be much better to have strict gun control or an altogether ban on them. But that's not the case.

The money spent on the anti-gun lobby or some disarming campaign would be much better spent on psychiatric screening of males in their teens to late twenties. The solution to inner city gang violence is not gun control but dealing with the socioeconomic situation that leads to violent gangs. The solution to drug epidemics is not a massive and expensive "war on drugs", but creating environments where people don't easily turn to drugs as their only escape.

Successful, happy, financially and medically secure people are far less likely to turn into crack addicts. Case in point - the Netherlands. Highly lax drug regulation, yet the result:



Now, these results don't happen in a vacuum. Getting rid of drug laws is not what leads to less drug use and less crime. The Netherlands is a "welfare state" by American standards. But it does go to show you that if you eliminate extreme income disparity, you reduce crime and drug use so much that even with far more lenient laws on drug use and crime, both occur far less.

On July 22 2012 21:22 zatic wrote:

That doesn't make the graphs incorrect.

And I seriously doubt it's less than 1% gun owners. Probably something around 5% of house holds sounds right for a country like Sweden. Which is not a lot compared to the US of course, but it's not like guns are non existent in Europe.

It's just that gun ownership seems something so foreign to many Europeans that they simply refuse to believe that there are in fact many gun owners in their own country. I have written about this rather curious phenomenon before:

http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=241586

On July 22 2012 23:56 -_-Quails wrote:

Most gun owners in Europe are subtle about it, or live on farms. You wouldn't know they had any unless you asked, or encountered them in a situation where the firearm was needed.

On July 23 2012 00:04 KingLol wrote:
Unfortunately, for every story like the one about the 71 year old guy, there are stories like this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/20/us-usa-florida-protest-idUSBRE86J1DY20120720

The problem with this thread (actually, more the entire pro-gun vs anti-gun debate) is that the pro-gunners have this very romanticised, fanatical view about guns which doesn't lend itself particularly well to objective reasoning; nevertheless, it's interesting to hear the views from both sides.

On July 23 2012 00:09 valium wrote:
We do NOT have an actual constitutional right to carry firearms, the constitution makes sure to specify the right to bear firearms is for those who are part of a militia. Non-military who are TRAINED in the proper use and proper care of firearms.

Let us ignore the overwhelming statistical evidence that countries with tighter and heavily enforced gun control laws have a significantly lower murder rate (per capita so no pointless argument over population.)

Of course those to blame for using firearms to perform violence are those who chose violence, but cmon people, lets make it extremely hard for them to get firearms. A nice added bonus would be that we no longer need them for "self defense."

On July 23 2012 00:12 LeSioN wrote:
such a dumb debate. more people owning guns = more deaths, end of story. i dont care what you say about responsible people needing to defend themselves. if a normal citizen can walk into walmart and buy a gun everyone is less safe. and having a gun in your closet isnt going to stop anyone trying to kill you. if guns were much more restricted less criminals would have access to them,(yes they would) meaning the guy mugging you on the street couldnt afford one or the guy breaking into your house or your child who decides to take it to school. the people that would still get the guns would be crime lords and drug pushers, the kind of people who are already taken care of by the police, not gun carrying citizens. if you want to be a dumb fucking cowboy you better go through years of training and legal bullshit first, because I shouldnt have to sacrifice my safety for your fucked up pleasures.

On July 23 2012 00:12 StarStrider wrote:


That's an excellent example of police abuse of power and overreaction and violating that man's rights. Gun owners should never have to fear death because they are abiding by the law and exercising their constitutional rights.

On July 23 2012 00:22 valium wrote:
Except you are more likely to kill me than someone trying to rob me. I wouldn't trust those who are fanatical about "self defense" with being able to walk straight let alone being responsible with their extremely dangerous weapon.

I do like your lack of comprehension of constitutional law or high court's historical decisions. If what you claim is true, there would not be such political dynomite about those damn liberals trying to get jer gins.

On July 23 2012 00:21 KingLol wrote:


No, it's actually an excellent example of the preventable tragedies that can befall law abiding citizens due to the situation-escalating nature of guns. I don't see how it was an abuse of police power: the policeman believed (mistakenly) he was dealing with a criminal suspect and thought he had no choice but to fire when confronted with a gun-wielding 'suspect'.

On July 23 2012 00:22 valium wrote:
Except you are more likely to kill me than someone trying to rob me. I wouldn't trust those who are fanatical about "self defense" with being able to walk straight let alone being responsible with their extremely dangerous weapon.

I do like your lack of comprehension of constitutional law or high court's historical decisions. If what you claim is true, there would not be such political dynomite about those damn liberals trying to get jer gins.

On July 23 2012 00:18 StarStrider wrote:


Switzerland? High per capita guns, one of the lowest murder rates. Rethink your statement?

Marginalizing responsible gun owners by calling them dumb fucking cowboys and implying they have fucked up pleasures because they like to feel safe does nothing for calling people to respect your position. Try more substance.

On July 23 2012 00:51 scaban84 wrote:


Is it possible to be "fanatical" about "self-defense"? Thats like being fanatical about eating food to survive or being fanatical about not jumping in front of moving trains.

Self-defense is primal necessity. And weapons have always been and always will be an integral part of human existence.

On July 23 2012 01:00 Toxi78 wrote:


because in your country having a weapon is the one way to feel safe?
then i'll give you that : you do need guns, but your society has a MUCH BIGGER problem than gun ownership.

On July 23 2012 01:02 NeMeSiS3 wrote:

You can be fanatical about everything you just said, I think you don't understand the definition so ... I took the liberty of Googling it for you.

"Obsessively concerned with something." <---- Now do you understand why you can be Fanatical about really anything? I can be fanatical about falling off buildings.