Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On January 18 2013 09:22 KingJames wrote: More people are killed by guns per year in the U.S. than all of Europe combined. Places like Japan and South Korea have virtually no gun related murders. On the other hand Mexico and Brazil have more gun murders than the U.S. per year but they also have extreme problems with organized crime. The argument that there is no sufficient evidence that strict gun laws work doesn't cut it when there is a wealth of statistical evidence that you can just use google to find. The fact is that gun laws do work and there are plenty of examples all over the world to look at.
The Sandy Hook shooter had a doomsday nut of a mom that just stockpiled weapons making it easy for him to take his pick of what he wanted to go on his mass shooting with. If weapons are much harder to get than nutcases like this won't be able to just easily grab assault rifles or pistols and go shoot up a school.
That might have worked if we could go back hundreds of years and stamp out the gun culture before it started. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. People on either side of the isse regarding whether or not additional simple gun control laws would help the USA should recognize that the USA is not truly comparable to any other country. What "worked" for the UK in the 80s is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. What "didn't work" in some country also is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. You can try to draw conclusions, but anyone who feels confident in them is deluding themselves.
What should be done with the hundreds of millions of guns in the country? With such a strong gun culture, buybacks (expensive) won't recover most of them, let alone an unfunded mandate to require them to be turned in. I feel really bad for the cops who have to try to confiscate guns from all the gun nuts who have been stocking up on guns and ammo for years just waiting for the government to come take their guns away (whether either side is justified or not). Also, any law which makes many thousands or millions of law abiding citizens into felons overnight is a big mistake.
Yeah its true that with something like 270 million guns already in the civilian population that recovering them would be almost impossible.. but over a few generations with the right laws and mindset it could be possible to reduce that number by a lot. Just because there is no overnight fix doesn't mean that the gun problem couldn't be fixed in time.
The stats (where America is not compared to another country) actually show that gun crime with "assault weapons" is very low. And in general, there are several things (like knives, IIRC) that kill more people than guns. I just don't see how taking guns from law-abiding citizens, 99.99999999...% of whom will never ever even shoot another person, is a good idea. Like the Chicago gun ban, that did a lot of good! Besides, this is a constitutional issue, America wouldn't even exist w/o guns in the hands of normal people. This issue is so overblown, they will take whatever chance they can get to ignore the Constitution "for the children." Isn't the fact that gun crime in the UK has gone UP since the ban indicative of something? This hurts people who need to defend themselves more than the people it aims to stop (completely ignoring rights). Therefore, it is a bad idea. Try to get past the emotional side and realize that a nation of legally disarmed citizens is less safe than one in which every qualified person has a gun.
On January 18 2013 09:22 KingJames wrote: More people are killed by guns per year in the U.S. than all of Europe combined. Places like Japan and South Korea have virtually no gun related murders. On the other hand Mexico and Brazil have more gun murders than the U.S. per year but they also have extreme problems with organized crime. The argument that there is no sufficient evidence that strict gun laws work doesn't cut it when there is a wealth of statistical evidence that you can just use google to find. The fact is that gun laws do work and there are plenty of examples all over the world to look at.
The Sandy Hook shooter had a doomsday nut of a mom that just stockpiled weapons making it easy for him to take his pick of what he wanted to go on his mass shooting with. If weapons are much harder to get than nutcases like this won't be able to just easily grab assault rifles or pistols and go shoot up a school.
That might have worked if we could go back hundreds of years and stamp out the gun culture before it started. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. People on either side of the isse regarding whether or not additional simple gun control laws would help the USA should recognize that the USA is not truly comparable to any other country. What "worked" for the UK in the 80s is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. What "didn't work" in some country also is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. You can try to draw conclusions, but anyone who feels confident in them is deluding themselves.
What should be done with the hundreds of millions of guns in the country? With such a strong gun culture, buybacks (expensive) won't recover most of them, let alone an unfunded mandate to require them to be turned in. I feel really bad for the cops who have to try to confiscate guns from all the gun nuts who have been stocking up on guns and ammo for years just waiting for the government to come take their guns away (whether either side is justified or not). Also, any law which makes many thousands or millions of law abiding citizens into felons overnight is a big mistake.
The reason there is such pervasive gun culture is because guns played a massive role in the building of North America. The very first fur trader trekking for half a year each way to get to their trap lines in Northern Canada relied on their guns for their lives. The only place to get food on the year long journey was some raunchy fucking pemmican (Fat/Berries Mixxed) or what ever you killed/trapped. Not to mention defending yourself from Injuns and Cougars/Bears/Wolves/what ever other mean wild life wanted to kill you.
The First Farmers on the Prairies were from the British Isles and were not used to the type of Farming that was needed on the "Steppes". Many families had horrible first few years in their Mud Huts on the wide open prairies with often tens of miles to a neighbour who were also barely surviving. I had to read accounts for one of my University courses of early farmers who would work dawn until dusk and not be able to eat when they got home. They could only eat a incredibly small portion of bread and maybe a bit of vegetables every few days. Being out in the cold as fuck prairies takes a ton of calories even without the back breaking work.They had to clear the land that they bought before they could even begin to farm which meant they had to remove tons of trees and stumps. The food they got from hunting was for many families the main thing that they had to eat for many years.
For most of the settlers who came to North America their gun was the most important thing that they owned. This attitude I would argue got passed on through the generations until we get to today with fear mongering and economic uncertainty thrown in.
The European experience of settling new lands was much earlier than firearms came around and there were no vast wilds to tame that required fire arms for safety and so no tradition formed.
On January 18 2013 09:22 KingJames wrote: More people are killed by guns per year in the U.S. than all of Europe combined. Places like Japan and South Korea have virtually no gun related murders. On the other hand Mexico and Brazil have more gun murders than the U.S. per year but they also have extreme problems with organized crime. The argument that there is no sufficient evidence that strict gun laws work doesn't cut it when there is a wealth of statistical evidence that you can just use google to find. The fact is that gun laws do work and there are plenty of examples all over the world to look at.
The Sandy Hook shooter had a doomsday nut of a mom that just stockpiled weapons making it easy for him to take his pick of what he wanted to go on his mass shooting with. If weapons are much harder to get than nutcases like this won't be able to just easily grab assault rifles or pistols and go shoot up a school.
That might have worked if we could go back hundreds of years and stamp out the gun culture before it started. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. People on either side of the isse regarding whether or not additional simple gun control laws would help the USA should recognize that the USA is not truly comparable to any other country. What "worked" for the UK in the 80s is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. What "didn't work" in some country also is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. You can try to draw conclusions, but anyone who feels confident in them is deluding themselves.
What should be done with the hundreds of millions of guns in the country? With such a strong gun culture, buybacks (expensive) won't recover most of them, let alone an unfunded mandate to require them to be turned in. I feel really bad for the cops who have to try to confiscate guns from all the gun nuts who have been stocking up on guns and ammo for years just waiting for the government to come take their guns away (whether either side is justified or not). Also, any law which makes many thousands or millions of law abiding citizens into felons overnight is a big mistake.
The reason there is such pervasive gun culture is because guns played a massive role in the building of North America. The very first fur trader trekking for half a year each way to get to their trap lines in Northern Canada relied on their guns for their lives. The only place to get food on the year long journey was some raunchy fucking pemmican (Fat/Berries Mixxed) or what ever you killed/trapped. Not to mention defending yourself from Injuns and Cougars/Bears/Wolves/what ever other mean wild life wanted to kill you.
The First Farmers on the Prairies were from the British Isles and were not used to the type of Farming that was needed on the "Steppes". Many families had horrible first few years in their Mud Huts on the wide open prairies with often tens of miles to a neighbour who were also barely surviving. I had to read accounts for one of my University courses of early farmers who would work dawn until dusk and not be able to eat when they got home. They could only eat a incredibly small portion of bread and maybe a bit of vegetables every few days. Being out in the cold as fuck prairies takes a ton of calories even without the back breaking work.They had to clear the land that they bought before they could even begin to farm which meant they had to remove tons of trees and stumps. The food they got from hunting was for many families the main thing that they had to eat for many years.
For most of the settlers who came to North America their gun was the most important thing that they owned. This attitude I would argue got passed on through the generations until we get to today with fear mongering and economic uncertainty thrown in.
The European experience of settling new lands was much earlier than firearms came around and there were no vast wilds to tame that required fire arms for safety and so no tradition formed.
That makes a lot of sense. So what do you think is the best option, looking forward, for the US? How do they tackle this deep-rooted problem? Obviously no quick band-aid fix is going to stick, but they have to start somewhere, right? Do they just hope people will get wise with time and realise guns aren't so critical and essential to their livelihood anymore? Perhaps there's nothing wrong with the status quo on gun control, and more effort should be made solely in other areas, like mental illness awareness & treatment? Perhaps education is the answer and they should be teaching children that the times have changed and gun proliferation isn't the answer or really helping anyone. Or should the government actively introduce measures to help that process along? If so, how much can they push without people rejecting it flat-out? Do you think Obama's plans are a step in the right direction?
On January 18 2013 09:22 KingJames wrote: More people are killed by guns per year in the U.S. than all of Europe combined. Places like Japan and South Korea have virtually no gun related murders. On the other hand Mexico and Brazil have more gun murders than the U.S. per year but they also have extreme problems with organized crime. The argument that there is no sufficient evidence that strict gun laws work doesn't cut it when there is a wealth of statistical evidence that you can just use google to find. The fact is that gun laws do work and there are plenty of examples all over the world to look at.
The Sandy Hook shooter had a doomsday nut of a mom that just stockpiled weapons making it easy for him to take his pick of what he wanted to go on his mass shooting with. If weapons are much harder to get than nutcases like this won't be able to just easily grab assault rifles or pistols and go shoot up a school.
That might have worked if we could go back hundreds of years and stamp out the gun culture before it started. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. People on either side of the isse regarding whether or not additional simple gun control laws would help the USA should recognize that the USA is not truly comparable to any other country. What "worked" for the UK in the 80s is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. What "didn't work" in some country also is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. You can try to draw conclusions, but anyone who feels confident in them is deluding themselves.
What should be done with the hundreds of millions of guns in the country? With such a strong gun culture, buybacks (expensive) won't recover most of them, let alone an unfunded mandate to require them to be turned in. I feel really bad for the cops who have to try to confiscate guns from all the gun nuts who have been stocking up on guns and ammo for years just waiting for the government to come take their guns away (whether either side is justified or not). Also, any law which makes many thousands or millions of law abiding citizens into felons overnight is a big mistake.
The reason there is such pervasive gun culture is because guns played a massive role in the building of North America. The very first fur trader trekking for half a year each way to get to their trap lines in Northern Canada relied on their guns for their lives. The only place to get food on the year long journey was some raunchy fucking pemmican (Fat/Berries Mixxed) or what ever you killed/trapped. Not to mention defending yourself from Injuns and Cougars/Bears/Wolves/what ever other mean wild life wanted to kill you.
The First Farmers on the Prairies were from the British Isles and were not used to the type of Farming that was needed on the "Steppes". Many families had horrible first few years in their Mud Huts on the wide open prairies with often tens of miles to a neighbour who were also barely surviving. I had to read accounts for one of my University courses of early farmers who would work dawn until dusk and not be able to eat when they got home. They could only eat a incredibly small portion of bread and maybe a bit of vegetables every few days. Being out in the cold as fuck prairies takes a ton of calories even without the back breaking work.They had to clear the land that they bought before they could even begin to farm which meant they had to remove tons of trees and stumps. The food they got from hunting was for many families the main thing that they had to eat for many years.
For most of the settlers who came to North America their gun was the most important thing that they owned. This attitude I would argue got passed on through the generations until we get to today with fear mongering and economic uncertainty thrown in.
The European experience of settling new lands was much earlier than firearms came around and there were no vast wilds to tame that required fire arms for safety and so no tradition formed.
That makes a lot of sense. So what do you think is the best option, looking forward, for the US? How do they tackle this deep-rooted problem? Obviously no quick band-aid fix is going to stick, but they have to start somewhere, right? Do they just hope people will get wise with time and realise guns aren't so critical and essential to their livelihood anymore? Perhaps there's nothing wrong with the status quo on gun control, and more effort should be made solely in other areas, like mental illness awareness & treatment? Perhaps education is the answer and they should be teaching children that the times have changed and gun proliferation isn't the answer or really helping anyone. Or should the government actively introduce measures to help that process along? If so, how much can they push without people rejecting it flat-out? Do you think Obama's plans are a step in the right direction?
What deep-rooted problem? Are people who are legally allowed to own guns going out and killing people with their legally owned "assault" weapons? It's the other way around. It's the people who aren't allowed who are getting access to even better weapons. Or it's just those mentally unstable who get access to any gun. Meanwhile, we are trying to restrict what the good guys get even further! The amount of crime committed with those weapons is very small.
Also, when did guns become unnecessary? What replaced them? Is there some other way to protect yourself in a bad situation?
On January 18 2013 09:22 KingJames wrote: More people are killed by guns per year in the U.S. than all of Europe combined. Places like Japan and South Korea have virtually no gun related murders. On the other hand Mexico and Brazil have more gun murders than the U.S. per year but they also have extreme problems with organized crime. The argument that there is no sufficient evidence that strict gun laws work doesn't cut it when there is a wealth of statistical evidence that you can just use google to find. The fact is that gun laws do work and there are plenty of examples all over the world to look at.
The Sandy Hook shooter had a doomsday nut of a mom that just stockpiled weapons making it easy for him to take his pick of what he wanted to go on his mass shooting with. If weapons are much harder to get than nutcases like this won't be able to just easily grab assault rifles or pistols and go shoot up a school.
That might have worked if we could go back hundreds of years and stamp out the gun culture before it started. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. People on either side of the isse regarding whether or not additional simple gun control laws would help the USA should recognize that the USA is not truly comparable to any other country. What "worked" for the UK in the 80s is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. What "didn't work" in some country also is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. You can try to draw conclusions, but anyone who feels confident in them is deluding themselves.
What should be done with the hundreds of millions of guns in the country? With such a strong gun culture, buybacks (expensive) won't recover most of them, let alone an unfunded mandate to require them to be turned in. I feel really bad for the cops who have to try to confiscate guns from all the gun nuts who have been stocking up on guns and ammo for years just waiting for the government to come take their guns away (whether either side is justified or not). Also, any law which makes many thousands or millions of law abiding citizens into felons overnight is a big mistake.
The reason there is such pervasive gun culture is because guns played a massive role in the building of North America. The very first fur trader trekking for half a year each way to get to their trap lines in Northern Canada relied on their guns for their lives. The only place to get food on the year long journey was some raunchy fucking pemmican (Fat/Berries Mixxed) or what ever you killed/trapped. Not to mention defending yourself from Injuns and Cougars/Bears/Wolves/what ever other mean wild life wanted to kill you.
The First Farmers on the Prairies were from the British Isles and were not used to the type of Farming that was needed on the "Steppes". Many families had horrible first few years in their Mud Huts on the wide open prairies with often tens of miles to a neighbour who were also barely surviving. I had to read accounts for one of my University courses of early farmers who would work dawn until dusk and not be able to eat when they got home. They could only eat a incredibly small portion of bread and maybe a bit of vegetables every few days. Being out in the cold as fuck prairies takes a ton of calories even without the back breaking work.They had to clear the land that they bought before they could even begin to farm which meant they had to remove tons of trees and stumps. The food they got from hunting was for many families the main thing that they had to eat for many years.
For most of the settlers who came to North America their gun was the most important thing that they owned. This attitude I would argue got passed on through the generations until we get to today with fear mongering and economic uncertainty thrown in.
The European experience of settling new lands was much earlier than firearms came around and there were no vast wilds to tame that required fire arms for safety and so no tradition formed.
That makes a lot of sense. So what do you think is the best option, looking forward, for the US? How do they tackle this deep-rooted problem? Obviously no quick band-aid fix is going to stick, but they have to start somewhere, right? Do they just hope people will get wise with time and realise guns aren't so critical and essential to their livelihood anymore? Perhaps there's nothing wrong with the status quo on gun control, and more effort should be made solely in other areas, like mental illness awareness & treatment? Perhaps education is the answer and they should be teaching children that the times have changed and gun proliferation isn't the answer or really helping anyone. Or should the government actively introduce measures to help that process along? If so, how much can they push without people rejecting it flat-out? Do you think Obama's plans are a step in the right direction?
Honestly I think the core of the problem is societal issues. Someone was throwing around 80% of gun violence is from gang violence. Idk how accurate that is but I think most of gun violence in the US is from the horrible poverty that exists in some cities in the US. I know in LA there are streets where you can walk totally fine on one side of the street but on the other you WILL get shot if you happen to have the wrong colour on. Honestly idk how to fix it. I think the gun violence is a symptom of deeper problems with mental health and the poor social safety nets.
On January 18 2013 09:22 KingJames wrote: More people are killed by guns per year in the U.S. than all of Europe combined. Places like Japan and South Korea have virtually no gun related murders. On the other hand Mexico and Brazil have more gun murders than the U.S. per year but they also have extreme problems with organized crime. The argument that there is no sufficient evidence that strict gun laws work doesn't cut it when there is a wealth of statistical evidence that you can just use google to find. The fact is that gun laws do work and there are plenty of examples all over the world to look at.
The Sandy Hook shooter had a doomsday nut of a mom that just stockpiled weapons making it easy for him to take his pick of what he wanted to go on his mass shooting with. If weapons are much harder to get than nutcases like this won't be able to just easily grab assault rifles or pistols and go shoot up a school.
That might have worked if we could go back hundreds of years and stamp out the gun culture before it started. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. People on either side of the isse regarding whether or not additional simple gun control laws would help the USA should recognize that the USA is not truly comparable to any other country. What "worked" for the UK in the 80s is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. What "didn't work" in some country also is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. You can try to draw conclusions, but anyone who feels confident in them is deluding themselves.
What should be done with the hundreds of millions of guns in the country? With such a strong gun culture, buybacks (expensive) won't recover most of them, let alone an unfunded mandate to require them to be turned in. I feel really bad for the cops who have to try to confiscate guns from all the gun nuts who have been stocking up on guns and ammo for years just waiting for the government to come take their guns away (whether either side is justified or not). Also, any law which makes many thousands or millions of law abiding citizens into felons overnight is a big mistake.
The reason there is such pervasive gun culture is because guns played a massive role in the building of North America. The very first fur trader trekking for half a year each way to get to their trap lines in Northern Canada relied on their guns for their lives. The only place to get food on the year long journey was some raunchy fucking pemmican (Fat/Berries Mixxed) or what ever you killed/trapped. Not to mention defending yourself from Injuns and Cougars/Bears/Wolves/what ever other mean wild life wanted to kill you.
The First Farmers on the Prairies were from the British Isles and were not used to the type of Farming that was needed on the "Steppes". Many families had horrible first few years in their Mud Huts on the wide open prairies with often tens of miles to a neighbour who were also barely surviving. I had to read accounts for one of my University courses of early farmers who would work dawn until dusk and not be able to eat when they got home. They could only eat a incredibly small portion of bread and maybe a bit of vegetables every few days. Being out in the cold as fuck prairies takes a ton of calories even without the back breaking work.They had to clear the land that they bought before they could even begin to farm which meant they had to remove tons of trees and stumps. The food they got from hunting was for many families the main thing that they had to eat for many years.
For most of the settlers who came to North America their gun was the most important thing that they owned. This attitude I would argue got passed on through the generations until we get to today with fear mongering and economic uncertainty thrown in.
The European experience of settling new lands was much earlier than firearms came around and there were no vast wilds to tame that required fire arms for safety and so no tradition formed.
That makes a lot of sense. So what do you think is the best option, looking forward, for the US? How do they tackle this deep-rooted problem? Obviously no quick band-aid fix is going to stick, but they have to start somewhere, right? Do they just hope people will get wise with time and realise guns aren't so critical and essential to their livelihood anymore? Perhaps there's nothing wrong with the status quo on gun control, and more effort should be made solely in other areas, like mental illness awareness & treatment? Perhaps education is the answer and they should be teaching children that the times have changed and gun proliferation isn't the answer or really helping anyone. Or should the government actively introduce measures to help that process along? If so, how much can they push without people rejecting it flat-out? Do you think Obama's plans are a step in the right direction?
Honestly I think the core of the problem is societal issues. Someone was throwing around 80% of gun violence is from gang violence. Idk how accurate that is but I think most of gun violence in the US is from the horrible poverty that exists in some cities in the US. I know in LA there are streets where you can walk totally fine on one side of the street but on the other you WILL get shot if you happen to have the wrong colour on. Honestly idk how to fix it. I think the gun violence is a symptom of deeper problems with mental health and the poor social safety nets.
As someone who has lived around several bad neighborhoods in southern California, that's quite an exaggeration. One that's thrown around all the time. People don't actually get shot for what color they are wearing, they get shot because of their affiliation with a gang which happens to generally wear that color. If you happened to not be affiliated with said gang and were in the wrong neighborhood with those colors on, you would probably be verbally and perhaps even physically harassed, but you would not be shot on sight. This is one of those occasions where correlation does not imply causation, which is something people like to throw around at much less appropriate times in internet debates.
On January 18 2013 09:22 KingJames wrote: More people are killed by guns per year in the U.S. than all of Europe combined. Places like Japan and South Korea have virtually no gun related murders. On the other hand Mexico and Brazil have more gun murders than the U.S. per year but they also have extreme problems with organized crime. The argument that there is no sufficient evidence that strict gun laws work doesn't cut it when there is a wealth of statistical evidence that you can just use google to find. The fact is that gun laws do work and there are plenty of examples all over the world to look at.
The Sandy Hook shooter had a doomsday nut of a mom that just stockpiled weapons making it easy for him to take his pick of what he wanted to go on his mass shooting with. If weapons are much harder to get than nutcases like this won't be able to just easily grab assault rifles or pistols and go shoot up a school.
That might have worked if we could go back hundreds of years and stamp out the gun culture before it started. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. People on either side of the isse regarding whether or not additional simple gun control laws would help the USA should recognize that the USA is not truly comparable to any other country. What "worked" for the UK in the 80s is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. What "didn't work" in some country also is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. You can try to draw conclusions, but anyone who feels confident in them is deluding themselves.
What should be done with the hundreds of millions of guns in the country? With such a strong gun culture, buybacks (expensive) won't recover most of them, let alone an unfunded mandate to require them to be turned in. I feel really bad for the cops who have to try to confiscate guns from all the gun nuts who have been stocking up on guns and ammo for years just waiting for the government to come take their guns away (whether either side is justified or not). Also, any law which makes many thousands or millions of law abiding citizens into felons overnight is a big mistake.
The reason there is such pervasive gun culture is because guns played a massive role in the building of North America. The very first fur trader trekking for half a year each way to get to their trap lines in Northern Canada relied on their guns for their lives. The only place to get food on the year long journey was some raunchy fucking pemmican (Fat/Berries Mixxed) or what ever you killed/trapped. Not to mention defending yourself from Injuns and Cougars/Bears/Wolves/what ever other mean wild life wanted to kill you.
The First Farmers on the Prairies were from the British Isles and were not used to the type of Farming that was needed on the "Steppes". Many families had horrible first few years in their Mud Huts on the wide open prairies with often tens of miles to a neighbour who were also barely surviving. I had to read accounts for one of my University courses of early farmers who would work dawn until dusk and not be able to eat when they got home. They could only eat a incredibly small portion of bread and maybe a bit of vegetables every few days. Being out in the cold as fuck prairies takes a ton of calories even without the back breaking work.They had to clear the land that they bought before they could even begin to farm which meant they had to remove tons of trees and stumps. The food they got from hunting was for many families the main thing that they had to eat for many years.
For most of the settlers who came to North America their gun was the most important thing that they owned. This attitude I would argue got passed on through the generations until we get to today with fear mongering and economic uncertainty thrown in.
The European experience of settling new lands was much earlier than firearms came around and there were no vast wilds to tame that required fire arms for safety and so no tradition formed.
That makes a lot of sense. So what do you think is the best option, looking forward, for the US? How do they tackle this deep-rooted problem? Obviously no quick band-aid fix is going to stick, but they have to start somewhere, right? Do they just hope people will get wise with time and realise guns aren't so critical and essential to their livelihood anymore? Perhaps there's nothing wrong with the status quo on gun control, and more effort should be made solely in other areas, like mental illness awareness & treatment? Perhaps education is the answer and they should be teaching children that the times have changed and gun proliferation isn't the answer or really helping anyone. Or should the government actively introduce measures to help that process along? If so, how much can they push without people rejecting it flat-out? Do you think Obama's plans are a step in the right direction?
What deep-rooted problem? Are people who are legally allowed to own guns going out and killing people with their legally owned "assault" weapons? It's the other way around. It's the people who aren't allowed who are getting access to even better weapons. Or it's just those mentally unstable who get access to any gun. Meanwhile, we are trying to restrict what the good guys get even further! The amount of crime committed with those weapons is very small.
Also, when did guns become unnecessary? What replaced them? Is there some other way to protect yourself in a bad situation?
So let me ask where do you draw the line? Personally I don't think you need a hand gun out side of your home. I don't think you should be able to walk into a sporting store and buy an AR-15 with drum mags with no back ground check.
Canadian Gun laws are pretty close to perfect imo. There are 3 tiers of weapons. The first level is unrestricted which you need to go through a basic gun safety course which takes an afternoon and then pass a test that consists of you handling a gun while someone observes and sees how you do. If you pass you get your PAL which you present when purchasing a weapon or ammo.
The next level is Restricted where you need to do a more advanced course and before you buy a restricted weapon you need to go the police and get a signed letter of permission. These weapons can not be any where but you home or at the range or in your car on the way to the range. If you are stopped with a restricted weapon in your car you better sign in at a range or all your weapons are taken.
The final level is a banned weapon this includes weapons with full auto, silencers and what not. Basically Military grade weapons that are just massive overkill for any civilian use.
You cannot get your PAL if you have a criminal record or a mental illness.
I wish I could get an AR-15 but it's pointless because it's restricted. Other than that I can't think of a real flaw in the system
The argument that it "makes guns hard to get" is retarded. It takes $50 and an afternoon to get the license...
On January 18 2013 09:22 KingJames wrote: More people are killed by guns per year in the U.S. than all of Europe combined. Places like Japan and South Korea have virtually no gun related murders. On the other hand Mexico and Brazil have more gun murders than the U.S. per year but they also have extreme problems with organized crime. The argument that there is no sufficient evidence that strict gun laws work doesn't cut it when there is a wealth of statistical evidence that you can just use google to find. The fact is that gun laws do work and there are plenty of examples all over the world to look at.
The Sandy Hook shooter had a doomsday nut of a mom that just stockpiled weapons making it easy for him to take his pick of what he wanted to go on his mass shooting with. If weapons are much harder to get than nutcases like this won't be able to just easily grab assault rifles or pistols and go shoot up a school.
That might have worked if we could go back hundreds of years and stamp out the gun culture before it started. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. People on either side of the isse regarding whether or not additional simple gun control laws would help the USA should recognize that the USA is not truly comparable to any other country. What "worked" for the UK in the 80s is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. What "didn't work" in some country also is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. You can try to draw conclusions, but anyone who feels confident in them is deluding themselves.
What should be done with the hundreds of millions of guns in the country? With such a strong gun culture, buybacks (expensive) won't recover most of them, let alone an unfunded mandate to require them to be turned in. I feel really bad for the cops who have to try to confiscate guns from all the gun nuts who have been stocking up on guns and ammo for years just waiting for the government to come take their guns away (whether either side is justified or not). Also, any law which makes many thousands or millions of law abiding citizens into felons overnight is a big mistake.
The reason there is such pervasive gun culture is because guns played a massive role in the building of North America. The very first fur trader trekking for half a year each way to get to their trap lines in Northern Canada relied on their guns for their lives. The only place to get food on the year long journey was some raunchy fucking pemmican (Fat/Berries Mixxed) or what ever you killed/trapped. Not to mention defending yourself from Injuns and Cougars/Bears/Wolves/what ever other mean wild life wanted to kill you.
The First Farmers on the Prairies were from the British Isles and were not used to the type of Farming that was needed on the "Steppes". Many families had horrible first few years in their Mud Huts on the wide open prairies with often tens of miles to a neighbour who were also barely surviving. I had to read accounts for one of my University courses of early farmers who would work dawn until dusk and not be able to eat when they got home. They could only eat a incredibly small portion of bread and maybe a bit of vegetables every few days. Being out in the cold as fuck prairies takes a ton of calories even without the back breaking work.They had to clear the land that they bought before they could even begin to farm which meant they had to remove tons of trees and stumps. The food they got from hunting was for many families the main thing that they had to eat for many years.
For most of the settlers who came to North America their gun was the most important thing that they owned. This attitude I would argue got passed on through the generations until we get to today with fear mongering and economic uncertainty thrown in.
The European experience of settling new lands was much earlier than firearms came around and there were no vast wilds to tame that required fire arms for safety and so no tradition formed.
That makes a lot of sense. So what do you think is the best option, looking forward, for the US? How do they tackle this deep-rooted problem? Obviously no quick band-aid fix is going to stick, but they have to start somewhere, right? Do they just hope people will get wise with time and realise guns aren't so critical and essential to their livelihood anymore? Perhaps there's nothing wrong with the status quo on gun control, and more effort should be made solely in other areas, like mental illness awareness & treatment? Perhaps education is the answer and they should be teaching children that the times have changed and gun proliferation isn't the answer or really helping anyone. Or should the government actively introduce measures to help that process along? If so, how much can they push without people rejecting it flat-out? Do you think Obama's plans are a step in the right direction?
Honestly I think the core of the problem is societal issues. Someone was throwing around 80% of gun violence is from gang violence. Idk how accurate that is but I think most of gun violence in the US is from the horrible poverty that exists in some cities in the US. I know in LA there are streets where you can walk totally fine on one side of the street but on the other you WILL get shot if you happen to have the wrong colour on. Honestly idk how to fix it. I think the gun violence is a symptom of deeper problems with mental health and the poor social safety nets.
As someone who has lived around several bad neighborhoods in southern California, that's quite an exaggeration. One that's thrown around all the time. People don't actually get shot for what color they are wearing, they get shot because of their affiliation with a gang which happens to generally wear that color. If you happened to not be affiliated with said gang and were in the wrong neighborhood with those colors on, you would probably be verbally and perhaps even physically harassed, but you would not be shot on sight. This is one of those occasions where correlation does not imply causation, which is something people like to throw around at much less appropriate times in internet debates.
Meh even without that example I do think most violence is from gangs.
I still cant believe there is a debate on this question.
first of all the Topic Question should be : Should people own and carry guns. NOT should they be allowed. why? because amerifags(humor) CARE about their individual rights and NO ONE shall touch them, the state should be as far away as possible of my life and business.
Now WHY should people carry and own guns? According to US' constitution its of every man will to carry and own a gun. This 2nd amendment, for every man who acknowledges that USA was built with the kind help of the negroslaves(yet again being a clown) or simply knows his US History, was TRULY adopted in order to maintain slavery. Defend against the negroooooos, who of course happend to be a danger if they retaliated (django).
If we look at statistics. which cannot entirely represent the TRUE situation, but still..... We can discover that NRA fans, gun lovers happen to be HISTORICALLY, a "southern" thing. an interesting correlation with my first point (I wont make correlation between NRA and republicans lolpalin and the "south" AND KKK...shit i did....).
appart from this "origin" of gun carrying. if we take a look at all the countries who aren't currently stuck in a war within. I'd suggest that USA is THE country with the most Shootings: schools, black kids(devon you my bro) etc. You guys have the nice advantage to get a couple per year, as of in any other country, even a country like china (1Billion people omg) cant beat you in fucktardswithguns.
NOW YOU CAN UNSEE THEM CORRELATIONS LIKE A GOOD AMERICAN PATRIOT or you can man up and see, "oh maybe there is something wrong in my country".
I mean... unless you have a gun collection(with empty clips and for pure hobbythingy) I don't see the point of having a gun. I have a candian passport(I'm canadian, but I don't consider myself canadian, ima frenchfag) and I don't feel the need to have a gun. we have ethnies though, dangerous ones (humor again), black, chinese all that melting thing who sells drugs and gangbang all day, and yet I don't have this necessity like most of you do. Gun was invented to kill, guns WILL kill one way or another. I LOVE LIFE, yet I should HATE guns.
Yes yes, there is more chance blablabblablabla that you die from a hippo attack than from a rifle. though we rarely see a hippo berserk a school. Its a SOCIETY problem, not a gun problem, BUT guns WAS the way to maintain THAT problem ( enslaving django and the other niggers) because it was profitable and it IS still (LOLOL NRA). Now how do we solve a problem A whose pillar is B(guns), get rid of B and truly fix A. Please for the kids who die every year in that america we all love.
On January 18 2013 09:22 KingJames wrote: More people are killed by guns per year in the U.S. than all of Europe combined. Places like Japan and South Korea have virtually no gun related murders. On the other hand Mexico and Brazil have more gun murders than the U.S. per year but they also have extreme problems with organized crime. The argument that there is no sufficient evidence that strict gun laws work doesn't cut it when there is a wealth of statistical evidence that you can just use google to find. The fact is that gun laws do work and there are plenty of examples all over the world to look at.
The Sandy Hook shooter had a doomsday nut of a mom that just stockpiled weapons making it easy for him to take his pick of what he wanted to go on his mass shooting with. If weapons are much harder to get than nutcases like this won't be able to just easily grab assault rifles or pistols and go shoot up a school.
That might have worked if we could go back hundreds of years and stamp out the gun culture before it started. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. People on either side of the isse regarding whether or not additional simple gun control laws would help the USA should recognize that the USA is not truly comparable to any other country. What "worked" for the UK in the 80s is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. What "didn't work" in some country also is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. You can try to draw conclusions, but anyone who feels confident in them is deluding themselves.
What should be done with the hundreds of millions of guns in the country? With such a strong gun culture, buybacks (expensive) won't recover most of them, let alone an unfunded mandate to require them to be turned in. I feel really bad for the cops who have to try to confiscate guns from all the gun nuts who have been stocking up on guns and ammo for years just waiting for the government to come take their guns away (whether either side is justified or not). Also, any law which makes many thousands or millions of law abiding citizens into felons overnight is a big mistake.
Yeah its true that with something like 270 million guns already in the civilian population that recovering them would be almost impossible.. but over a few generations with the right laws and mindset it could be possible to reduce that number by a lot. Just because there is no overnight fix doesn't mean that the gun problem couldn't be fixed in time.
The stats (where America is not compared to another country) actually show that gun crime with "assault weapons" is very low. And in general, there are several things (like knives, IIRC) that kill more people than guns. I just don't see how taking guns from law-abiding citizens, 99.99999999...% of whom will never ever even shoot another person, is a good idea. Like the Chicago gun ban, that did a lot of good! Besides, this is a constitutional issue, America wouldn't even exist w/o guns in the hands of normal people. This issue is so overblown, they will take whatever chance they can get to ignore the Constitution "for the children." Isn't the fact that gun crime in the UK has gone UP since the ban indicative of something? This hurts people who need to defend themselves more than the people it aims to stop (completely ignoring rights). Therefore, it is a bad idea. Try to get past the emotional side and realize that a nation of legally disarmed citizens is less safe than one in which every qualified person has a gun.
Like I stated in my previous post there are more murders due to guns in the U.S. than all of Europe combined. I could include Canada and most countries in Asia as well. Why does a good guy need an assault rifle to defend himself? there are are plenty of weapons such as shotguns and rifles that don`t have the same mass killing power and would be just fine for home defense. Why do we need pistols in the population when they are so easy to conceal, I understand that you have probably been raised and conditioned to think this way but really open your eyes man. How many more innocent children need to be butchered before people realize its just not worth it to have such easy access to that kind of firepower.
On January 18 2013 09:22 KingJames wrote: More people are killed by guns per year in the U.S. than all of Europe combined. Places like Japan and South Korea have virtually no gun related murders. On the other hand Mexico and Brazil have more gun murders than the U.S. per year but they also have extreme problems with organized crime. The argument that there is no sufficient evidence that strict gun laws work doesn't cut it when there is a wealth of statistical evidence that you can just use google to find. The fact is that gun laws do work and there are plenty of examples all over the world to look at.
The Sandy Hook shooter had a doomsday nut of a mom that just stockpiled weapons making it easy for him to take his pick of what he wanted to go on his mass shooting with. If weapons are much harder to get than nutcases like this won't be able to just easily grab assault rifles or pistols and go shoot up a school.
That might have worked if we could go back hundreds of years and stamp out the gun culture before it started. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. People on either side of the isse regarding whether or not additional simple gun control laws would help the USA should recognize that the USA is not truly comparable to any other country. What "worked" for the UK in the 80s is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. What "didn't work" in some country also is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. You can try to draw conclusions, but anyone who feels confident in them is deluding themselves.
What should be done with the hundreds of millions of guns in the country? With such a strong gun culture, buybacks (expensive) won't recover most of them, let alone an unfunded mandate to require them to be turned in. I feel really bad for the cops who have to try to confiscate guns from all the gun nuts who have been stocking up on guns and ammo for years just waiting for the government to come take their guns away (whether either side is justified or not). Also, any law which makes many thousands or millions of law abiding citizens into felons overnight is a big mistake.
The reason there is such pervasive gun culture is because guns played a massive role in the building of North America. The very first fur trader trekking for half a year each way to get to their trap lines in Northern Canada relied on their guns for their lives. The only place to get food on the year long journey was some raunchy fucking pemmican (Fat/Berries Mixxed) or what ever you killed/trapped. Not to mention defending yourself from Injuns and Cougars/Bears/Wolves/what ever other mean wild life wanted to kill you.
The First Farmers on the Prairies were from the British Isles and were not used to the type of Farming that was needed on the "Steppes". Many families had horrible first few years in their Mud Huts on the wide open prairies with often tens of miles to a neighbour who were also barely surviving. I had to read accounts for one of my University courses of early farmers who would work dawn until dusk and not be able to eat when they got home. They could only eat a incredibly small portion of bread and maybe a bit of vegetables every few days. Being out in the cold as fuck prairies takes a ton of calories even without the back breaking work.They had to clear the land that they bought before they could even begin to farm which meant they had to remove tons of trees and stumps. The food they got from hunting was for many families the main thing that they had to eat for many years.
For most of the settlers who came to North America their gun was the most important thing that they owned. This attitude I would argue got passed on through the generations until we get to today with fear mongering and economic uncertainty thrown in.
The European experience of settling new lands was much earlier than firearms came around and there were no vast wilds to tame that required fire arms for safety and so no tradition formed.
That makes a lot of sense. So what do you think is the best option, looking forward, for the US? How do they tackle this deep-rooted problem? Obviously no quick band-aid fix is going to stick, but they have to start somewhere, right? Do they just hope people will get wise with time and realise guns aren't so critical and essential to their livelihood anymore? Perhaps there's nothing wrong with the status quo on gun control, and more effort should be made solely in other areas, like mental illness awareness & treatment? Perhaps education is the answer and they should be teaching children that the times have changed and gun proliferation isn't the answer or really helping anyone. Or should the government actively introduce measures to help that process along? If so, how much can they push without people rejecting it flat-out? Do you think Obama's plans are a step in the right direction?
What deep-rooted problem? Are people who are legally allowed to own guns going out and killing people with their legally owned "assault" weapons? It's the other way around. It's the people who aren't allowed who are getting access to even better weapons. Or it's just those mentally unstable who get access to any gun. Meanwhile, we are trying to restrict what the good guys get even further! The amount of crime committed with those weapons is very small.
Also, when did guns become unnecessary? What replaced them? Is there some other way to protect yourself in a bad situation?
So let me ask where do you draw the line? Personally I don't think you need a hand gun out side of your home. I don't think you should be able to walk into a sporting store and buy an AR-15 with drum mags with no back ground check.
Canadian Gun laws are pretty close to perfect imo. There are 3 tiers of weapons. The first level is unrestricted which you need to go through a basic gun safety course which takes an afternoon and then pass a test that consists of you handling a gun while someone observes and sees how you do. If you pass you get your PAL which you present when purchasing a weapon or ammo.
The next level is Restricted where you need to do a more advanced course and before you buy a restricted weapon you need to go the police and get a signed letter of permission. These weapons can not be any where but you home or at the range or in your car on the way to the range. If you are stopped with a restricted weapon in your car you better sign in at a range or all your weapons are taken.
The final level is a banned weapon this includes weapons with full auto, silencers and what not. Basically Military grade weapons that are just massive overkill for any civilian use.
You cannot get your PAL if you have a criminal record or a mental illness.
I wish I could get an AR-15 but it's pointless because it's restricted. Other than that I can't think of a real flaw in the system
We can draw the line when we get close to where it might be. All the data says that weapons like the AR-15 contribute almost nothing to gun violence. the VAST majority of gun violence is committed with the guns you just said anyone can get in Canada: handguns. Should we ban those too? Also, I can see plenty of instances where having a gun outside the home is great: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/11/Pharmacist-Uses-Gun-To-Stop-Robbery
The problems come when people CAN'T arm themselves. There were no guns carried by those attacked in any of the school shootings: none in the Sandy Hook case, etc. Another fun fact: The Virginia Tech killer used handguns only. Still killed 32 people. So it is clear that the type of gun is irrelevant, and that the more armed people are around, the easier everyone can be protected.
Also, our founding must be remembered. We are a culture with a history of guns being used to emancipate us; the second amendment was added for, among other things, the protection of the individual against the state. Therefore, we are not fans of the state deciding which ones we can't have.
But the main part here is A., tier two weaponry/banned weapons (though you didn't say which guns were in tier 2) is in the vast minority of gun crime, B., gun control measures do not work (Chicago) or have no/negative effect (see murder rate after the weapons ban expired), C., we have an amendment that cannot be overturned with the stroke of a pen, and D., that taking guns and ammo from perfectly normal, law-abiding citizens who will NEVER shoot anyone only helps the criminals.
There is a huge and very obvious flaw to the much beloved argument concerning the 2nd amendment allowing civilians to arm themselves, in order to fight any tyrannical government (which begs the question why all the tea partiers haven't encircled Pensylvania Avenue 1600 already with their AR-15s) and it goes something like this: the founding fathers obviously couldn't forsee the development in weaponry and thus have not taken this into account - but effectively the right to bear arms should thus also include the right to wield, say, RPGs, tanks, drones, f-16 with smartbombs or a suitcase nuke! Obviously this line of thinking becomes absurd rather fast, and that is my point exactly, to show how absurd the 2nd amendment is. Yes, I realize the historical circumstances with regards to the constitution and all that. No, I am not trolling (and have actually lived three years in God's own country).
In my native country of Denmark, most people have never seen a real weapon let alone fired one (I have as a youngster fired a hunting rifle - the experience was 'meh', dunno what the fuss is about) so the thought of banning guns is second nature to danes (because they are already banned! - on a side note, the world's first school shooting took place in Denmark in the early 90's at Aarhus University (which was done with a hunting rifle if memory serves me right)). The opposite seems to hold true with regards to americans, but as a proud dane I am still able to see that we as a country have a very flawed constitution which needs revision at least, and a complete overhaul prefereably. Why are americans so zealous about their constitution, and why is it so incomprehensible that maybe the founding fathers got some things wrong (which, due to progress and all that jazz is excusable) and that the 2nd amendment needs revision at least, and overhaul at best? Why are the, to speak colloquially, gunfags so religious about especially the 2nd amendment? We don't live in a world were that would apply even remotely, and if you think it still does, then sure, take your glock19 and AR-15 and try to take down the U.S. army with those, because that is what you would be up against in the horror scenario that gunfags keep alluding to.
Anyway, constituon aside, the problem with schoolshootings seems to me to be the trend factor. The people doing this have seen what exposure this gets in the news and know that the perpetrators' names will go down, for worse, in the history books. So my answer would be for the media and society at large to downplay these events and not mention the name(s) of whoever did the crime. There's a saying in my native danish that roughly translates to "it should be silenced to death" (no, it doesn't alude to using a suppressed weapon ^^) which I hope people will understand the meaning of. That's an easy solution right there, then perhaps it's time to consider the more deeply rooted social problems that cause young heavily armed men to run amok in society.
Did assault weapons kill these people, or did people holding assault weapons kill people? Are you really going to blame the gun, not the gunman?
No of course. But with an assault rifle, it is always a carnage. It is less likely to turn into a rampage if the guy is carrying only a small gun. I know that these people would eventually commit murders, but with an assault rifle, it is a lot more dramatic.
I think that when you know the guy in front of you is very likely carrying a gun, you are a lot more tempted to shoot first. Even if the danger is not that big.
I admit it is a lot more complicated than just restricting guns. But it would a least diminish the rampages like we saw a few weeks ago.
On January 18 2013 09:22 KingJames wrote: More people are killed by guns per year in the U.S. than all of Europe combined. Places like Japan and South Korea have virtually no gun related murders. On the other hand Mexico and Brazil have more gun murders than the U.S. per year but they also have extreme problems with organized crime. The argument that there is no sufficient evidence that strict gun laws work doesn't cut it when there is a wealth of statistical evidence that you can just use google to find. The fact is that gun laws do work and there are plenty of examples all over the world to look at.
The Sandy Hook shooter had a doomsday nut of a mom that just stockpiled weapons making it easy for him to take his pick of what he wanted to go on his mass shooting with. If weapons are much harder to get than nutcases like this won't be able to just easily grab assault rifles or pistols and go shoot up a school.
That might have worked if we could go back hundreds of years and stamp out the gun culture before it started. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. People on either side of the isse regarding whether or not additional simple gun control laws would help the USA should recognize that the USA is not truly comparable to any other country. What "worked" for the UK in the 80s is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. What "didn't work" in some country also is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. You can try to draw conclusions, but anyone who feels confident in them is deluding themselves.
What should be done with the hundreds of millions of guns in the country? With such a strong gun culture, buybacks (expensive) won't recover most of them, let alone an unfunded mandate to require them to be turned in. I feel really bad for the cops who have to try to confiscate guns from all the gun nuts who have been stocking up on guns and ammo for years just waiting for the government to come take their guns away (whether either side is justified or not). Also, any law which makes many thousands or millions of law abiding citizens into felons overnight is a big mistake.
The reason there is such pervasive gun culture is because guns played a massive role in the building of North America. The very first fur trader trekking for half a year each way to get to their trap lines in Northern Canada relied on their guns for their lives. The only place to get food on the year long journey was some raunchy fucking pemmican (Fat/Berries Mixxed) or what ever you killed/trapped. Not to mention defending yourself from Injuns and Cougars/Bears/Wolves/what ever other mean wild life wanted to kill you.
The First Farmers on the Prairies were from the British Isles and were not used to the type of Farming that was needed on the "Steppes". Many families had horrible first few years in their Mud Huts on the wide open prairies with often tens of miles to a neighbour who were also barely surviving. I had to read accounts for one of my University courses of early farmers who would work dawn until dusk and not be able to eat when they got home. They could only eat a incredibly small portion of bread and maybe a bit of vegetables every few days. Being out in the cold as fuck prairies takes a ton of calories even without the back breaking work.They had to clear the land that they bought before they could even begin to farm which meant they had to remove tons of trees and stumps. The food they got from hunting was for many families the main thing that they had to eat for many years.
For most of the settlers who came to North America their gun was the most important thing that they owned. This attitude I would argue got passed on through the generations until we get to today with fear mongering and economic uncertainty thrown in.
The European experience of settling new lands was much earlier than firearms came around and there were no vast wilds to tame that required fire arms for safety and so no tradition formed.
That makes a lot of sense. So what do you think is the best option, looking forward, for the US? How do they tackle this deep-rooted problem? Obviously no quick band-aid fix is going to stick, but they have to start somewhere, right? Do they just hope people will get wise with time and realise guns aren't so critical and essential to their livelihood anymore? Perhaps there's nothing wrong with the status quo on gun control, and more effort should be made solely in other areas, like mental illness awareness & treatment? Perhaps education is the answer and they should be teaching children that the times have changed and gun proliferation isn't the answer or really helping anyone. Or should the government actively introduce measures to help that process along? If so, how much can they push without people rejecting it flat-out? Do you think Obama's plans are a step in the right direction?
What deep-rooted problem? Are people who are legally allowed to own guns going out and killing people with their legally owned "assault" weapons? It's the other way around. It's the people who aren't allowed who are getting access to even better weapons. Or it's just those mentally unstable who get access to any gun. Meanwhile, we are trying to restrict what the good guys get even further! The amount of crime committed with those weapons is very small.
Also, when did guns become unnecessary? What replaced them? Is there some other way to protect yourself in a bad situation?
So let me ask where do you draw the line? Personally I don't think you need a hand gun out side of your home. I don't think you should be able to walk into a sporting store and buy an AR-15 with drum mags with no back ground check.
Canadian Gun laws are pretty close to perfect imo. There are 3 tiers of weapons. The first level is unrestricted which you need to go through a basic gun safety course which takes an afternoon and then pass a test that consists of you handling a gun while someone observes and sees how you do. If you pass you get your PAL which you present when purchasing a weapon or ammo.
The next level is Restricted where you need to do a more advanced course and before you buy a restricted weapon you need to go the police and get a signed letter of permission. These weapons can not be any where but you home or at the range or in your car on the way to the range. If you are stopped with a restricted weapon in your car you better sign in at a range or all your weapons are taken.
The final level is a banned weapon this includes weapons with full auto, silencers and what not. Basically Military grade weapons that are just massive overkill for any civilian use.
You cannot get your PAL if you have a criminal record or a mental illness.
I wish I could get an AR-15 but it's pointless because it's restricted. Other than that I can't think of a real flaw in the system
We can draw the line when we get close to where it might be. All the data says that weapons like the AR-15 contribute almost nothing to gun violence. the VAST majority of gun violence is committed with the guns you just said anyone can get in Canada: handguns. Should we ban those too? Also, I can see plenty of instances where having a gun outside the home is great: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/11/Pharmacist-Uses-Gun-To-Stop-Robbery
The problems come when people CAN'T arm themselves. There were no guns carried by those attacked in any of the school shootings: none in the Sandy Hook case, etc. Another fun fact: The Virginia Tech killer used handguns only. Still killed 32 people. So it is clear that the type of gun is irrelevant, and that the more armed people are around, the easier everyone can be protected.
Also, our founding must be remembered. We are a culture with a history of guns being used to emancipate us; the second amendment was added for, among other things, the protection of the individual against the state. Therefore, we are not fans of the state deciding which ones we can't have.
But the main part here is A., tier two weaponry/banned weapons (though you didn't say which guns were in tier 2) is in the vast minority of gun crime, B., gun control measures do not work (Chicago) or have no/negative effect (see murder rate after the weapons ban expired), C., we have an amendment that cannot be overturned with the stroke of a pen, and D., that taking guns and ammo from perfectly normal, law-abiding citizens who will NEVER shoot anyone only helps the criminals.
Having a gun in your place of business is very different from walking around with your pistol at the mall. I would argue that A) a shot gun is much better for defending your store from a robbery and B) that your store is considered a residency any ways.
There are certain things that put a gun on the restricted list like barrel length. Under an 18 inch barrel it is restricted and other factors. I'm too tired/lazy too look it up tbh. Handguns are always restricted though.
Having a gun for self defense is all good in your home. I'm in favour of the kill any intruder in your home after a reasonable check to make sure your not gonna shoot your kid who snuck out to drink. But you don't need a M249 or other ridiculous military weapon to do so. Any shotgun would be more effective because of the scary as fuck cocking sound and the sheer power of the round. Getting a deer slug or buck shot to chest would put any body down. I hope I never have to harm another human being in any way shape or form but if someone is in my home in the middle of the night they are obviously there for nefarious reasons and I will not gamble that they are not the next BTK/Ted Bundy I'll tell them to leave and that I'm armed and if they continue towards me they won't make it much farther. I own my guns for hunting/target shooting the self defence in a one in a billion chance of a home invasion is just an added bonus.
I'm well aware that handguns are responsible for the most deaths. That's why you don't need them out side of your home or at the range. If they are causing the most deaths why should you be allowed to walk around with them? Even if a lot of the crime is committed by criminals your realistically never going to be able to actually defend yourself on the street. If you do get mugged your not gonna be able to pull your gun before they just kill you unless the mugger has downs syndrome. It's not like he is gonna stand 10 feet away, he is gonna be right up on you with a gun or a knife in your back.
Honestly I don't have a good answer for the walking around and mugging scenario. I wish you could blast any ass hole who tried to rough you up or rob you because honestly if some douchebag is gonna start something I don't think anyone should have to gamble with their life to fight back. You should be able to bring overwhelming force onto any one is threatening to harm you. We had a couple of pieces of shit here recently who beat a pastor to death for breaking up a fight. When he fell to the ground the way he hit his head killed him. I don't think you should be required to risk that 1 in a billion chance of hitting you head that way and die when some dick head tries to rob/beat you up. But what happens when someone starts a bar fight and they lose and then pull a gun in self defence or something else ridiculous like that. I think very careful control of who is allowed to concealed carry would make this issue go away.
The only scenario outside of the home that you could maybe make a major difference is a school shooting but what if you put the actual shooter down and then another good Samaritan guns you down because your holding a gun? Or you miss a few times which is very understandable considering the stress/low requirements for owning a gun and you kill a few innocent bystanders? I think a better solution to the problem of school shootings is to make them not happen in the first place with a wayyyyy better system of background checks on individuals and much better quality of mental health care. I mean honestly does getting a background check really bother you that much? Even if most of the school shootings used illegal weapons is 5 minutes waiting for the check not worth stopping a possible shooting? Hopefully mental health care can be improved to stop these tragedies from happening by helping these people over come their issues before they do something fucked up.
Right now I have an SKS, a Savage 30-06, Remington 870, A .22 Henry Repeater, an All American .270, and a 10/22. Your still allowed to own pretty much anything you want + Show Spoiler +
these for example. Hell a family friend of mine owns around 100 guns and 10 or something handguns he also has a grandfathered prospecters permit from the late 1800s that lets him carry a pistol in the woods. It's not like the Government of Canada is only allowing us to have muzzle loaders and pay an arm and a leg for it. We can get an AR-14, M4 clone thing and the Vector to name a few. I would argue that having full auto weapons would just piss away valuable ammo in a rebellion against a Gov't any ways. Blasting away on Full Auto would empty your 30 round clip in like 4 seconds or something. Much more efficient to use semi and pick your shots. Especially in the terrain in BC with the massive forests and mountain where you could set up ambushes on the one or two roads that actually go through the Rockies and then melt back into the woods.
I don't think guns are the problem they are after all just a piece of metal but I do think it is important to have a reasonable standard to owning a gun. I think at the minimum there should be a safety course before you get a gun license and even more intensive training for a concealed carry permit.
I really do think that mental health care is the main cause behind the school shootings. I can only speak from anecdotal evidence but from what aI saw it was pretty fucked up. A little rant about my exprience in the spoiler... + Show Spoiler +
A very close loved one of mine just got over a psychotic episode and the way the nurses treated her in the hospital was fucking pathetic. They were honestly the most useless pieces of shit I have ever seen. She was very delusional and paranoid and they expected her to come and ask for her fucking meds and they wouldn't go get her if she didn't ask for them. Keep in mind this is when she was 100% convinced that a guy down the hall on the way to the station chopped up her dad and ate him and the sound of doors opening and closing was the sound of someone torturing her dog outside her door. Would you walk into that hallway if you genuinely believed that the guy who butchered your dad was right next door? would you be able to sleep? I would be trying to comfort her and get her to sleep because when she was first admitted she hadn't slept in about a week because she was so paranoid that she wouldn't wake up if she did and one night a nurse wake her up by bursting into the room when I first got her to sleep at the end of visiting hours and then kicked me out while she cried her eyes out after having been woken up and realizing I was leaving. I fucking chewed them out so they gave me much more leeway with visiting hours after that incident and that cunt wasn't assigned to her any more. Seriously fuck that nurse
This is a huge deal because she wasn't getting the dose of meds the doctor ordered for her because she wasn't taking them at the proper time. A very major part of the treatment is trying to dial in the exact dosages needed to keep the person stable. However since the nurses did fuck all to make sure she actually took her meds so she was not improving at all until her mom (who is an OR nurse) took a shit load of time off work to do the nurses at the hospitals job for them... Another example of shit care was when I came one day to visit and she was sitting in the room across the hall from the nurse station screaming shut up over and over curled up in a ball crying and none of them fucking helped her. The 10 nurses on duty were sitting there playing on their computers. How hard is it to get your useless ass off of fucking solitaire and help a girl who is clearly very disturbed and horrified and help her? I'm very passionate about the state of health care because seeing her in that state and how utterly useless the nurse staff was broke my heart. I have never had people be so rude either ignoring you entirely while you sit at the window asking when she last took her meds/asking for the door to be opened/anything . People in that state are just not themselves it is impossible to explain to someone who hasn't seen it first hand. I mean it isn't hard to imagine a person who had a shitty upbringing being abused by their parents, being bullied mercilessly, etc. etc. and what not to have that hospital experience that and then turn around shoot up a school.
I made another thread to discuss something besides the 2nd amendment and posted this video (is embedding allowed?) apologies if not:
While the thread didn't focus on the 2nd amendment, the video does have a certain element to it that I believe deserves some attention. I'm not saying I'm for or against any new legislation limiting or protecting gun rights. I would like someone, however, to give arguments (with proper sources) against the points made in the above video. I honestly am too impressed (or whatever) by his arguments that I want to find something wrong with them.
On January 18 2013 15:44 crazyweasel wrote: According to US' constitution its of every man will to carry and own a gun. This 2nd amendment, for every man who acknowledges that USA was built with the kind help of the negroslaves(yet again being a clown) or simply knows his US History, was TRULY adopted in order to maintain slavery. Defend against the negroooooos, who of course happend to be a danger if they retaliated (django).
If we look at statistics. which cannot entirely represent the TRUE situation, but still..... We can discover that NRA fans, gun lovers happen to be HISTORICALLY, a "southern" thing. an interesting correlation with my first point (I wont make correlation between NRA and republicans lolpalin and the "south" AND KKK...shit i did....).
People keep bringing slavery into this discussion without a solid understanding of US history, in some cases without even a passable understanding of it. The 2nd amendment was not for the use of maintaining absolute dominance of slavery in the southern United States. That's not even an exaggeration and I have a hard time believe it's a misunderstanding. I believe that's an outright and blatant lie that you know is untrue.
Slave rebellions were actually very scarce in the most of America. Not because slave owners had guns and slaves didn't, but because the slaves were not well enough organized. In many ways it was impossible for them to organize. African slaves did not even share a common language. A fact which is well evidenced by languages such as Gullah and Creole which evolved within slave culture. An sort of rebellion was then limited to individuals and small groups.
On the other hand, serious rebellions did happen amongst those indentured into periods of servitude. Typically poverty stricken white males who's passage to America was paid on credit they were then forced to work off, at the end of which time they often had no choice but to once again sign a contract of service. These rebellions would seem fairly close in comparison to the union riots following the American industrial revolution. Despite what you might believe, much of the initial colonization of what would become the United States was done by these indentured servants. African slavery didn't make up the majority of the work force in the south until after several very bloody rebellions caused by poor health of the poverty stricken indentured.
So historically, African slaves did not rebel but indentured white citizens did. If the second amendment was meant to protect the upper class from those who labored for them, clearly they wouldn't have allowed the white labor force to own weapons.
As far as the NRA is concerned, it was founded in New York as a response to the Union Army's poor marksmanship during the civil war. It was meant to train civilians how to properly use the new, more accurate weapons available to them in the case of them being called into military service. The United States Army was much different in it's practices back then, and there wasn't much of a formal training period for those who volunteered or where conscripted into service. They were often given a weapon and placed under someone's command, where they were then expected to do their duty.
So the only correlations between your first and second points are that they are both wrong, and they were both made by you.
On January 18 2013 18:18 Dr.PeterKien wrote: There is a huge and very obvious flaw to the much beloved argument concerning the 2nd amendment allowing civilians to arm themselves, in order to fight any tyrannical government (which begs the question why all the tea partiers haven't encircled Pensylvania Avenue 1600 already with their AR-15s) and it goes something like this: the founding fathers obviously couldn't forsee the development in weaponry and thus have not taken this into account - but effectively the right to bear arms should thus also include the right to wield, say, RPGs, tanks, drones, f-16 with smartbombs or a suitcase nuke! Obviously this line of thinking becomes absurd rather fast, and that is my point exactly, to show how absurd the 2nd amendment is. Yes, I realize the historical circumstances with regards to the constitution and all that. No, I am not trolling (and have actually lived three years in God's own country).
In my native country of Denmark, most people have never seen a real weapon let alone fired one (I have as a youngster fired a hunting rifle - the experience was 'meh', dunno what the fuss is about) so the thought of banning guns is second nature to danes (because they are already banned! - on a side note, the world's first school shooting took place in Denmark in the early 90's at Aarhus University (which was done with a hunting rifle if memory serves me right)). The opposite seems to hold true with regards to americans, but as a proud dane I am still able to see that we as a country have a very flawed constitution which needs revision at least, and a complete overhaul prefereably. Why are americans so zealous about their constitution, and why is it so incomprehensible that maybe the founding fathers got some things wrong (which, due to progress and all that jazz is excusable) and that the 2nd amendment needs revision at least, and overhaul at best? Why are the, to speak colloquially, gunfags so religious about especially the 2nd amendment? We don't live in a world were that would apply even remotely, and if you think it still does, then sure, take your glock19 and AR-15 and try to take down the U.S. army with those, because that is what you would be up against in the horror scenario that gunfags keep alluding to.
Anyway, constituon aside, the problem with schoolshootings seems to me to be the trend factor. The people doing this have seen what exposure this gets in the news and know that the perpetrators' names will go down, for worse, in the history books. So my answer would be for the media and society at large to downplay these events and not mention the name(s) of whoever did the crime. There's a saying in my native danish that roughly translates to "it should be silenced to death" (no, it doesn't alude to using a suppressed weapon ^^) which I hope people will understand the meaning of. That's an easy solution right there, then perhaps it's time to consider the more deeply rooted social problems that cause young heavily armed men to run amok in society.
I have to go to sleep, but I will attempt a response.
First, I would like to note a lack of facts and figures. Gun violence is not related to access to certain types of guns, especially "assault" weapons.
You (and many others in the thread) seem to think that, due to the vicious march of the overly-broad term "progress," guns are no longer needed. That would be true, except fighting today is still done with guns, be they used by armies or criminals. Because of this, citizens should be equally well armed, in order to have a reasonable chance at self-defense. This is why lowering the ammo in a magazine is such an asinine idea.
No, you don't need a tank (though collectors can get them I believe). No one is saying you should have a tank or a nuke. Let me be modest here: you should be at least as well armed as those that could harm you. Sound fair?
As to the Constitution: no, they could not have told you there would have been a semi-auto rifle called the AR-15. But, they obviously knew that technology would advance. They knew that in history the primary weapon was a sword or bow and arrow! They knew it didn't stay that way! Thus, to say they were not considering the future is also false. (Also notice, the second amendment says "arms," not "muskets".) We like the Constitution, because, in the words of Obama (who said this in a more annoyed tone of voice) "it is a document of negative liberties... what the government can't do to you or for you." (close paraphrase). We used to want the government out of the way (at least until the dawn of the Progressive movement). You must remember, we had just came out of a fight for independence. The founders were fearful of another tyrannical government (something history is full of). As to would it be effective now... I don't want to speculate, because we are not at that point and, God willing, never will be. Point is, we don't want the government, full of easily corruptible humans, telling us how well we can defend ourselves (and, in the more abstract, our liberty). We still talk about the second amendment because it is (supposed to be) LAW. You CANNOT violate it without changing it first. So all these overboard rules are breaches against the document our representatives swore to uphold. Also, we have procedure to change the Constitution, it has been done numerous times. The politicians do this mandate and fiat crap these days because they could never get it past the states. The Tea Party, by the way, is way more peaceful even than OWS. This image of them as dangerous or scary is so hilariously false it makes me sick. A bunch of college kids crap in a park? "oh well, their heart is in the right place, etc, etc." Those TPers are peacefully holding signs, leaving everything clean when they are gone, protesting government? "Those guys are crazy!" What a load of crap.
And I still don know what societal issues you are talking about. Crime will always be around.
There are hundreds of millions guns legally owned in this country. The vast majority are used lawfully by the lawful owners.
In short: Gun control fails to do what it sets out to do, while at the same time restricting the choice and options for lawful citizens. Thus, it should not, at the very least, be expanded (I may even argue we should roll back some, but that is for another time).
On January 18 2013 09:22 KingJames wrote: More people are killed by guns per year in the U.S. than all of Europe combined. Places like Japan and South Korea have virtually no gun related murders. On the other hand Mexico and Brazil have more gun murders than the U.S. per year but they also have extreme problems with organized crime. The argument that there is no sufficient evidence that strict gun laws work doesn't cut it when there is a wealth of statistical evidence that you can just use google to find. The fact is that gun laws do work and there are plenty of examples all over the world to look at.
The Sandy Hook shooter had a doomsday nut of a mom that just stockpiled weapons making it easy for him to take his pick of what he wanted to go on his mass shooting with. If weapons are much harder to get than nutcases like this won't be able to just easily grab assault rifles or pistols and go shoot up a school.
That might have worked if we could go back hundreds of years and stamp out the gun culture before it started. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. People on either side of the isse regarding whether or not additional simple gun control laws would help the USA should recognize that the USA is not truly comparable to any other country. What "worked" for the UK in the 80s is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. What "didn't work" in some country also is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. You can try to draw conclusions, but anyone who feels confident in them is deluding themselves.
What should be done with the hundreds of millions of guns in the country? With such a strong gun culture, buybacks (expensive) won't recover most of them, let alone an unfunded mandate to require them to be turned in. I feel really bad for the cops who have to try to confiscate guns from all the gun nuts who have been stocking up on guns and ammo for years just waiting for the government to come take their guns away (whether either side is justified or not). Also, any law which makes many thousands or millions of law abiding citizens into felons overnight is a big mistake.
The reason there is such pervasive gun culture is because guns played a massive role in the building of North America. The very first fur trader trekking for half a year each way to get to their trap lines in Northern Canada relied on their guns for their lives. The only place to get food on the year long journey was some raunchy fucking pemmican (Fat/Berries Mixxed) or what ever you killed/trapped. Not to mention defending yourself from Injuns and Cougars/Bears/Wolves/what ever other mean wild life wanted to kill you.
The First Farmers on the Prairies were from the British Isles and were not used to the type of Farming that was needed on the "Steppes". Many families had horrible first few years in their Mud Huts on the wide open prairies with often tens of miles to a neighbour who were also barely surviving. I had to read accounts for one of my University courses of early farmers who would work dawn until dusk and not be able to eat when they got home. They could only eat a incredibly small portion of bread and maybe a bit of vegetables every few days. Being out in the cold as fuck prairies takes a ton of calories even without the back breaking work.They had to clear the land that they bought before they could even begin to farm which meant they had to remove tons of trees and stumps. The food they got from hunting was for many families the main thing that they had to eat for many years.
For most of the settlers who came to North America their gun was the most important thing that they owned. This attitude I would argue got passed on through the generations until we get to today with fear mongering and economic uncertainty thrown in.
The European experience of settling new lands was much earlier than firearms came around and there were no vast wilds to tame that required fire arms for safety and so no tradition formed.
That makes a lot of sense. So what do you think is the best option, looking forward, for the US? How do they tackle this deep-rooted problem? Obviously no quick band-aid fix is going to stick, but they have to start somewhere, right? Do they just hope people will get wise with time and realise guns aren't so critical and essential to their livelihood anymore? Perhaps there's nothing wrong with the status quo on gun control, and more effort should be made solely in other areas, like mental illness awareness & treatment? Perhaps education is the answer and they should be teaching children that the times have changed and gun proliferation isn't the answer or really helping anyone. Or should the government actively introduce measures to help that process along? If so, how much can they push without people rejecting it flat-out? Do you think Obama's plans are a step in the right direction?
What deep-rooted problem? Are people who are legally allowed to own guns going out and killing people with their legally owned "assault" weapons? It's the other way around. It's the people who aren't allowed who are getting access to even better weapons. Or it's just those mentally unstable who get access to any gun. Meanwhile, we are trying to restrict what the good guys get even further! The amount of crime committed with those weapons is very small.
Also, when did guns become unnecessary? What replaced them? Is there some other way to protect yourself in a bad situation?
So let me ask where do you draw the line? Personally I don't think you need a hand gun out side of your home. I don't think you should be able to walk into a sporting store and buy an AR-15 with drum mags with no back ground check.
Canadian Gun laws are pretty close to perfect imo. There are 3 tiers of weapons. The first level is unrestricted which you need to go through a basic gun safety course which takes an afternoon and then pass a test that consists of you handling a gun while someone observes and sees how you do. If you pass you get your PAL which you present when purchasing a weapon or ammo.
The next level is Restricted where you need to do a more advanced course and before you buy a restricted weapon you need to go the police and get a signed letter of permission. These weapons can not be any where but you home or at the range or in your car on the way to the range. If you are stopped with a restricted weapon in your car you better sign in at a range or all your weapons are taken.
The final level is a banned weapon this includes weapons with full auto, silencers and what not. Basically Military grade weapons that are just massive overkill for any civilian use.
You cannot get your PAL if you have a criminal record or a mental illness.
I wish I could get an AR-15 but it's pointless because it's restricted. Other than that I can't think of a real flaw in the system
We can draw the line when we get close to where it might be. All the data says that weapons like the AR-15 contribute almost nothing to gun violence. the VAST majority of gun violence is committed with the guns you just said anyone can get in Canada: handguns. Should we ban those too? Also, I can see plenty of instances where having a gun outside the home is great: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/11/Pharmacist-Uses-Gun-To-Stop-Robbery
The problems come when people CAN'T arm themselves. There were no guns carried by those attacked in any of the school shootings: none in the Sandy Hook case, etc. Another fun fact: The Virginia Tech killer used handguns only. Still killed 32 people. So it is clear that the type of gun is irrelevant, and that the more armed people are around, the easier everyone can be protected.
Also, our founding must be remembered. We are a culture with a history of guns being used to emancipate us; the second amendment was added for, among other things, the protection of the individual against the state. Therefore, we are not fans of the state deciding which ones we can't have.
But the main part here is A., tier two weaponry/banned weapons (though you didn't say which guns were in tier 2) is in the vast minority of gun crime, B., gun control measures do not work (Chicago) or have no/negative effect (see murder rate after the weapons ban expired), C., we have an amendment that cannot be overturned with the stroke of a pen, and D., that taking guns and ammo from perfectly normal, law-abiding citizens who will NEVER shoot anyone only helps the criminals.
Having a gun in your place of business is very different from walking around with your pistol at the mall. I would argue that A) a shot gun is much better for defending your store from a robbery and B) that your store is considered a residency any ways.
There are certain things that put a gun on the restricted list like barrel length. Under an 18 inch barrel it is restricted and other factors. I'm too tired/lazy too look it up tbh. Handguns are always restricted though.
Having a gun for self defense is all good in your home. I'm in favour of the kill any intruder in your home after a reasonable check to make sure your not gonna shoot your kid who snuck out to drink. But you don't need a M249 or other ridiculous military weapon to do so. Any shotgun would be more effective because of the scary as fuck cocking sound and the sheer power of the round. Getting a deer slug or buck shot to chest would put any body down. I hope I never have to harm another human being in any way shape or form but if someone is in my home in the middle of the night they are obviously there for nefarious reasons and I will not gamble that they are not the next BTK/Ted Bundy I'll tell them to leave and that I'm armed and if they continue towards me they won't make it much farther. I own my guns for hunting/target shooting the self defence in a one in a billion chance of a home invasion is just an added bonus.
I'm well aware that handguns are responsible for the most deaths. That's why you don't need them out side of your home or at the range. If they are causing the most deaths why should you be allowed to walk around with them? Even if a lot of the crime is committed by criminals your realistically never going to be able to actually defend yourself on the street. If you do get mugged your not gonna be able to pull your gun before they just kill you unless the mugger has downs syndrome. It's not like he is gonna stand 10 feet away, he is gonna be right up on you with a gun or a knife in your back.
Honestly I don't have a good answer for the walking around and mugging scenario. I wish you could blast any ass hole who tried to rough you up or rob you because honestly if some douchebag is gonna start something I don't think anyone should have to gamble with their life to fight back. You should be able to bring overwhelming force onto any one is threatening to harm you. We had a couple of pieces of shit here recently who beat a pastor to death for breaking up a fight. When he fell to the ground the way he hit his head killed him. I don't think you should be required to risk that 1 in a billion chance of hitting you head that way and die when some dick head tries to rob/beat you up. But what happens when someone starts a bar fight and they lose and then pull a gun in self defence or something else ridiculous like that. I think very careful control of who is allowed to concealed carry would make this issue go away.
The only scenario outside of the home that you could maybe make a major difference is a school shooting but what if you put the actual shooter down and then another good Samaritan guns you down because your holding a gun? Or you miss a few times which is very understandable considering the stress/low requirements for owning a gun and you kill a few innocent bystanders? I think a better solution to the problem of school shootings is to make them not happen in the first place with a wayyyyy better system of background checks on individuals and much better quality of mental health care. I mean honestly does getting a background check really bother you that much? Even if most of the school shootings used illegal weapons is 5 minutes waiting for the check not worth stopping a possible shooting? Hopefully mental health care can be improved to stop these tragedies from happening by helping these people over come their issues before they do something fucked up.
Right now I have an SKS, a Savage 30-06, Remington 870, A .22 Henry Repeater, an All American .270, and a 10/22. Your still allowed to own pretty much anything you want + Show Spoiler +
these for example. Hell a family friend of mine owns around 100 guns and 10 or something handguns he also has a grandfathered prospecters permit from the late 1800s that lets him carry a pistol in the woods. It's not like the Government of Canada is only allowing us to have muzzle loaders and pay an arm and a leg for it. We can get an AR-14, M4 clone thing and the Vector to name a few. I would argue that having full auto weapons would just piss away valuable ammo in a rebellion against a Gov't any ways. Blasting away on Full Auto would empty your 30 round clip in like 4 seconds or something. Much more efficient to use semi and pick your shots. Especially in the terrain in BC with the massive forests and mountain where you could set up ambushes on the one or two roads that actually go through the Rockies and then melt back into the woods.
I don't think guns are the problem they are after all just a piece of metal but I do think it is important to have a reasonable standard to owning a gun. I think at the minimum there should be a safety course before you get a gun license and even more intensive training for a concealed carry permit.
I really do think that mental health care is the main cause behind the school shootings. I can only speak from anecdotal evidence but from what aI saw it was pretty fucked up. A little rant about my exprience in the spoiler... + Show Spoiler +
A very close loved one of mine just got over a psychotic episode and the way the nurses treated her in the hospital was fucking pathetic. They were honestly the most useless pieces of shit I have ever seen. She was very delusional and paranoid and they expected her to come and ask for her fucking meds and they wouldn't go get her if she didn't ask for them. Keep in mind this is when she was 100% convinced that a guy down the hall on the way to the station chopped up her dad and ate him and the sound of doors opening and closing was the sound of someone torturing her dog outside her door. Would you walk into that hallway if you genuinely believed that the guy who butchered your dad was right next door? would you be able to sleep? I would be trying to comfort her and get her to sleep because when she was first admitted she hadn't slept in about a week because she was so paranoid that she wouldn't wake up if she did and one night a nurse wake her up by bursting into the room when I first got her to sleep at the end of visiting hours and then kicked me out while she cried her eyes out after having been woken up and realizing I was leaving. I fucking chewed them out so they gave me much more leeway with visiting hours after that incident and that cunt wasn't assigned to her any more. Seriously fuck that nurse
This is a huge deal because she wasn't getting the dose of meds the doctor ordered for her because she wasn't taking them at the proper time. A very major part of the treatment is trying to dial in the exact dosages needed to keep the person stable. However since the nurses did fuck all to make sure she actually took her meds so she was not improving at all until her mom (who is an OR nurse) took a shit load of time off work to do the nurses at the hospitals job for them... Another example of shit care was when I came one day to visit and she was sitting in the room across the hall from the nurse station screaming shut up over and over curled up in a ball crying and none of them fucking helped her. The 10 nurses on duty were sitting there playing on their computers. How hard is it to get your useless ass off of fucking solitaire and help a girl who is clearly very disturbed and horrified and help her? I'm very passionate about the state of health care because seeing her in that state and how utterly useless the nurse staff was broke my heart. I have never had people be so rude either ignoring you entirely while you sit at the window asking when she last took her meds/asking for the door to be opened/anything . People in that state are just not themselves it is impossible to explain to someone who hasn't seen it first hand. I mean it isn't hard to imagine a person who had a shitty upbringing being abused by their parents, being bullied mercilessly, etc. etc. and what not to have that hospital experience that and then turn around shoot up a school.
But having better background checks wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook. I am not against background checks per se, but not every gun has to (or should be) tracked all the time. I wonder how many people die in the barfight you described vs people who have defended themselves with guns? (I can find an example of a person defending some other public place, it was a movie theater recently, I believe. Google it. if he didn't have a gun through concealed carry, many more could have died.) We don't hear about mass murders (or murders and crime in general) prevented because they are -surprise!- prevented. Having armed civilians is a good idea. Because some irresponsible moron does something, the rest of the law-abiding, PERFECTLY INNOCENT population should be pre-banned from something? The government is not here to protect us from ourselves. There are crazy people, taking from everyone else because of one person is wrong.
Please go read up on the subject, gun control is, at the very best, a non-factor, at worst, it makes the situation worse.
YES EVERYBODY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO OWN GUNS. WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS BULLSHIT ABOUT? THE ASSHOLES WANT TO TAKE YOUR FREEDOM FROM YOU. ARE YOU A FUCKING IDIOT? THE REASON THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE GUNS IS SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT YOU KILLING THEIR GREEDY ASSES.
EPT
you my bro) etc. You guys have the nice advantage to get a couple per year, as of in any other country, even a country like china (1Billion people omg) cant beat you in fucktardswithguns.
