|
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 May 23 2018 17:34 opisska wrote:
I find the "waiting period" question interesting, but I could not really find data to support/undermine it. Does anyone have a statistics of "days gun purchased before shooting" for mass shootings? If indeed having a non-avoidable month-wait period would seem useful, what are even the downsides? Is anyone really put in a real problem by not having the gun today?
I think in general such questions such be asked before "culture" comes as an excuse for everything.
I don't have any hard data; from my general impression waiting periods aren't relevant for many mass shootings, which are long time owned guns (sometimes belonging to other family) or purchased long before; major mass shootings are often planned for months in advance.
|
Finally not banned anymore. My 2 cents ?
Education : It's expensive.
Medical bills : it's expensive af.
Results ? Dumb kids all over the place.
Guns control ? It does nothing. You already tried for I don't know how long. Plus your country isn't the only one to have the right to have guns. Switzerland is a good example : the ratio of gun per user is insanely high aswell. Yet I don't see any problem in this country. Why is that ?
If you still can't see the problem, then maybe you need to check yourself. Wake up sheep.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Like most politics in America, the problem with the debate is that humans are an irrelevant concern. When you have a young girl say in black and white terms 'of course I expected it would happen here, it's happening everywhere' on national TV, and the response is 'shrug, what can you do', you've seen the true face of the debate.
If people actually mattered, both sides would get down to brass tacks, look each other in the eyes and say, 'something needs to be done and we're going to do it', and the President would lead the way.
Instead the pattern is as predictable as it is tedious. Fake tears, fake hopes and prayers, fake concern until everyone's forgotten and the next one happens, repeat until you get a breathing space and you can forget about it altogether.
The debate is a much 'higher' debate, about the nebulous ideas of freedom and control, constitutional interpretation/authority, etc. etc. If you scrape off the rust on both sides' creaky old arguments, that's what you see underneath. And yes I'm choosing to ignore the lobbies and the money involved, as I think they're part of the 'lower' debate as well. The problem is that those sorts of debates are very very slow.
It's why you can get grotesquely inconsistent argumentation like 'mental health is the problem' and then no actual proposals or movement to do anything about mental health provision. The point isn't to actually do anything, it's to quiet the 'lower' discussion so the 'higher' discussion can go on unhindered.
For my own two bent pennies, it seems to me the second amendment is clearly no longer doing what it was put in the constitution to do. On those grounds alone it seems to me that it ought to be revisited and updated accordingly.
On May 23 2018 03:23 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 01:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:
Mental illness is an overused term in theses cases as well. Committing violent acts alone does not automatically make someone meet the requirements of what the medial world would consider treatable mental illness. Anyone can have a mental health crisis at any time. You don't need to have been diagnosed with a mental illness. That's why easy, quick availability of guns for whoever wants to buy one is a recipe for disaster in a society where we are becoming more aware of how ubiquitous mental health issues are. X could lose it tomorrow and decide he wants to go and kill a bunch of people. X could try and knife people but its far riskier and less effective. X could try and build a bomb but its difficult and probably wouldn't work. If x can walk into a store and have a gun in *however much time it takes to get a gun in America* and walk straight out and shoot away that's obviously what he would go for. 3 days later he might have got help and no longer want to kill anyone. This is the nature of mental health crises. There's an easy way to prevent this. I might have mentioned it one or two times on the previous page. Although I agree with you in most of this, I was attempting to point out that mental illness is not the cause of these shootings in every case. Or most gun violence. Mental illness is often used as a short hand to attempt to explain an explainable part of human behavior, like a mass shooting. It is also used as an excuse to avoid tightening up background checks or other loopholes. That somehow, if enough mental health services were available, the shooter might have gone to one of those services rather than shoot a whole lot of people. But I am with you that effective gun laws that prevent instant access to guns are a good idea. There is proven data that just closing the gaps in background checks has a noticeable impact on all gun violence in a state. And there's proven data that shows that reducing poverty has a much bigger impact on reducing gun violence in general more than anything else. I don't see the media clamoring for the reduction of poverty every time a mass shooting occurs though, nor does the media ever talk about how the vast majority of gun violence comes from inter city gang violence. Until there are assurances that the 2nd Amendment won't be taken away, most gun owners are not going to budge on things like registration, expanded background checks, waiting periods, etc; The biggest issue is that most people here are masquerading 'gun control' as an extra step towards eventually a society without guns. .
Why is that a bad thing, precisely? What is so fundamentally awesome about guns that they're a requirement for civilisation to function? Also, frankly, what assurances would they believe? The NRA erupts into hysterics at the suggestion of even the gentlest, mildest bit of gun legislation. They pump out propaganda videos even when nobody's talking about limiting gun freedoms. If you have to wait until gun owners feel comfortable, you're setting an unpassable bar to ever doing anything. Which I'm sure is your objective, but it is what it is.
America genuinely does need more guns than a good chunk of the european world because so much of it is rural (and rural folks have access to guns in most european countries for that precise reason), but I simply don't see the argument that a citizen needs access to military-grade firearms for day to day usage.
But your country is currently in a phase of militarising your schools. That statement should stand alone as a sign that you're past the point where something needs looking at, and deep into something must be done now,
|
Switzerland carefully regulates access to ammo.
|
On May 23 2018 22:12 Plansix wrote:
Switzerland carefully regulates access to ammo.
It's about the same regulations as the United States has. Private ammunition and government ammunition are two separate entities essentially in Switzerland and are thus regulated differently. It's actually very easy to access ammunition as long as you have the required documents (which isn't much different from a background check in the U.S.)
Like I said, there are numerous other countries with a very high number of firearms within their countries, and yet they hardly have any school shootings (if any at all). This issue is much more deeply rooted in society, and would require a much more complex solution then just simply saying "let's throw some gun control laws out and call it a day."
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On May 23 2018 22:12 Plansix wrote:
Switzerland carefully regulates access to ammo.
in what way? do elaborate please
On May 23 2018 22:21 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 22:12 Plansix wrote:
Switzerland carefully regulates access to ammo. It's about the same regulations as the United States has. Private ammunition and government ammunition are two separate entities essentially in Switzerland and are thus regulated differently. It's actually very easy to access ammunition as long as you have the required documents (which isn't much different from a background check in the U.S.)
indeed. i don't know for swiss citizens buying ammo, but as a foreigner buying ammo from swiss gun stores, they need to make a record. they take your personal details and address. they also need to see evidence that your home country trusts you with firearms. so for me, i produce my passport and my UK firearms license. an american guy i shoot with there produces his passport and his concealed carry permit. other than that, it's very easy to buy ammo.
|
On May 23 2018 22:22 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 22:12 Plansix wrote:
Switzerland carefully regulates access to ammo. in what way? do elaborate please
They apply the same laws to purchasing a fire arm if the shop owner requires it. You need to provide the same license that is used to buy a fire arm. To get that license, the person needs to provide their personal information and criminal record for application. In contrast, the some states barely require an ID card to buy ammo.
Switzerland has the background checks and regulation of person to person sales that people would love to have in the US. They have a system that creates a responsible gun owning population by making the gun owners responsible for informing the state when sales take place.
|
On May 23 2018 22:21 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 22:12 Plansix wrote:
Switzerland carefully regulates access to ammo. It's about the same regulations as the United States has. Private ammunition and government ammunition are two separate entities essentially in Switzerland and are thus regulated differently. It's actually very easy to access ammunition as long as you have the required documents (which isn't much different from a background check in the U.S.) Like I said, there are numerous other countries with a very high number of firearms within their countries, and yet they hardly have any school shootings (if any at all). This issue is much more deeply rooted in society, and would require a much more complex solution then just simply saying "let's throw some gun control laws out and call it a day."
The "numerous other countries" you keep referring to have a third or less of the amount of guns per capita compared to the US and various legislations in place that people in this very thread are clearly opposed to.
Countries like Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Iceland, Germany, Finland or Switzerland are all in the top 20 worldwide - and none of them is even remotely close to the amount of guns that the US has around. Countries that are actually "anti-gun" in some form are way down the list like the UK (6.2 guns per capita) or Japan (0.6 guns per capita).
The US is the outlier in the western world, both when it comes to amount of guns in circulation and (non-existing) regulation.
You can't just look at Swiss Gun laws and go "Eh, about the same regulation as in the US".
|
On May 23 2018 22:11 iamthedave wrote:Like most politics in America, the problem with the debate is that humans are an irrelevant concern. When you have a young girl say in black and white terms 'of course I expected it would happen here, it's happening everywhere' on national TV, and the response is 'shrug, what can you do', you've seen the true face of the debate. If people actually mattered, both sides would get down to brass tacks, look each other in the eyes and say, 'something needs to be done and we're going to do it', and the President would lead the way. Instead the pattern is as predictable as it is tedious. Fake tears, fake hopes and prayers, fake concern until everyone's forgotten and the next one happens, repeat until you get a breathing space and you can forget about it altogether. The debate is a much 'higher' debate, about the nebulous ideas of freedom and control, constitutional interpretation/authority, etc. etc. If you scrape off the rust on both sides' creaky old arguments, that's what you see underneath. And yes I'm choosing to ignore the lobbies and the money involved, as I think they're part of the 'lower' debate as well. The problem is that those sorts of debates are very very slow. It's why you can get grotesquely inconsistent argumentation like 'mental health is the problem' and then no actual proposals or movement to do anything about mental health provision. The point isn't to actually do anything, it's to quiet the 'lower' discussion so the 'higher' discussion can go on unhindered. For my own two bent pennies, it seems to me the second amendment is clearly no longer doing what it was put in the constitution to do. On those grounds alone it seems to me that it ought to be revisited and updated accordingly. Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 03:23 superstartran wrote:On May 23 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 01:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:
Mental illness is an overused term in theses cases as well. Committing violent acts alone does not automatically make someone meet the requirements of what the medial world would consider treatable mental illness. Anyone can have a mental health crisis at any time. You don't need to have been diagnosed with a mental illness. That's why easy, quick availability of guns for whoever wants to buy one is a recipe for disaster in a society where we are becoming more aware of how ubiquitous mental health issues are. X could lose it tomorrow and decide he wants to go and kill a bunch of people. X could try and knife people but its far riskier and less effective. X could try and build a bomb but its difficult and probably wouldn't work. If x can walk into a store and have a gun in *however much time it takes to get a gun in America* and walk straight out and shoot away that's obviously what he would go for. 3 days later he might have got help and no longer want to kill anyone. This is the nature of mental health crises. There's an easy way to prevent this. I might have mentioned it one or two times on the previous page. Although I agree with you in most of this, I was attempting to point out that mental illness is not the cause of these shootings in every case. Or most gun violence. Mental illness is often used as a short hand to attempt to explain an explainable part of human behavior, like a mass shooting. It is also used as an excuse to avoid tightening up background checks or other loopholes. That somehow, if enough mental health services were available, the shooter might have gone to one of those services rather than shoot a whole lot of people. But I am with you that effective gun laws that prevent instant access to guns are a good idea. There is proven data that just closing the gaps in background checks has a noticeable impact on all gun violence in a state. And there's proven data that shows that reducing poverty has a much bigger impact on reducing gun violence in general more than anything else. I don't see the media clamoring for the reduction of poverty every time a mass shooting occurs though, nor does the media ever talk about how the vast majority of gun violence comes from inter city gang violence. Until there are assurances that the 2nd Amendment won't be taken away, most gun owners are not going to budge on things like registration, expanded background checks, waiting periods, etc; The biggest issue is that most people here are masquerading 'gun control' as an extra step towards eventually a society without guns. . Why is that a bad thing, precisely? What is so fundamentally awesome about guns that they're a requirement for civilisation to function? Also, frankly, what assurances would they believe? The NRA erupts into hysterics at the suggestion of even the gentlest, mildest bit of gun legislation. They pump out propaganda videos even when nobody's talking about limiting gun freedoms. If you have to wait until gun owners feel comfortable, you're setting an unpassable bar to ever doing anything. Which I'm sure is your objective, but it is what it is. America genuinely does need more guns than a good chunk of the european world because so much of it is rural (and rural folks have access to guns in most european countries for that precise reason), but I simply don't see the argument that a citizen needs access to military-grade firearms for day to day usage. But your country is currently in a phase of militarising your schools. That statement should stand alone as a sign that you're past the point where something needs looking at, and deep into something must be done now,
This post sums up everything that I think a lot of us have been saying or thinking about posting. The arguing isn't worth the trouble. Waiting for someone to reply to this with a carefully thought out rebuttal.
|
On May 24 2018 02:31 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 22:21 superstartran wrote:On May 23 2018 22:12 Plansix wrote:
Switzerland carefully regulates access to ammo. It's about the same regulations as the United States has. Private ammunition and government ammunition are two separate entities essentially in Switzerland and are thus regulated differently. It's actually very easy to access ammunition as long as you have the required documents (which isn't much different from a background check in the U.S.) Like I said, there are numerous other countries with a very high number of firearms within their countries, and yet they hardly have any school shootings (if any at all). This issue is much more deeply rooted in society, and would require a much more complex solution then just simply saying "let's throw some gun control laws out and call it a day." The "numerous other countries" you keep referring to have a third or less of the amount of guns per capita compared to the US and various legislations in place that people in this very thread are clearly opposed to. Countries like Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Iceland, Germany, Finland or Switzerland are all in the top 20 worldwide - and none of them is even remotely close to the amount of guns that the US has around. Countries that are actually "anti-gun" in some form are way down the list like the UK (6.2 guns per capita) or Japan (0.6 guns per capita). The US is the outlier in the western world, both when it comes to amount of guns in circulation and (non-existing) regulation. You can't just look at Swiss Gun laws and go "Eh, about the same regulation as in the US".
That's a poor rebuttal; Switzerland and Canada even though they have less guns per capita than the U.S. still have significantly more guns per capita than most of the Western World. Yet they don't have nearly as many school shootings, not even in the same stratosphere. And it's not like it's similar ratios; we're talking about essentially zero in both of those countries despite a fairly high number of available firearms.
But yet you and others always want to claim it's because of the guns that are causing the issue. It's not the guns; it's a much more deeply rooted problem.
|
On May 24 2018 03:17 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2018 02:31 r.Evo wrote:On May 23 2018 22:21 superstartran wrote:On May 23 2018 22:12 Plansix wrote:
Switzerland carefully regulates access to ammo. It's about the same regulations as the United States has. Private ammunition and government ammunition are two separate entities essentially in Switzerland and are thus regulated differently. It's actually very easy to access ammunition as long as you have the required documents (which isn't much different from a background check in the U.S.) Like I said, there are numerous other countries with a very high number of firearms within their countries, and yet they hardly have any school shootings (if any at all). This issue is much more deeply rooted in society, and would require a much more complex solution then just simply saying "let's throw some gun control laws out and call it a day." The "numerous other countries" you keep referring to have a third or less of the amount of guns per capita compared to the US and various legislations in place that people in this very thread are clearly opposed to. Countries like Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Iceland, Germany, Finland or Switzerland are all in the top 20 worldwide - and none of them is even remotely close to the amount of guns that the US has around. Countries that are actually "anti-gun" in some form are way down the list like the UK (6.2 guns per capita) or Japan (0.6 guns per capita). The US is the outlier in the western world, both when it comes to amount of guns in circulation and (non-existing) regulation. You can't just look at Swiss Gun laws and go "Eh, about the same regulation as in the US". That's a poor rebuttal; Switzerland and Canada even though they have less guns per capita than the U.S. still have significantly more guns per capita than most of the Western World. Yet they don't have nearly as many school shootings, not even in the same stratosphere. And it's not like it's similar ratios; we're talking about essentially zero in both of those countries despite a fairly high number of available firearms. But yet you and others always want to claim it's because of the guns that are causing the issue. It's not the guns; it's a much more deeply rooted problem.
Ok. So get rid of the vast majority guns if you aren't going to work on those issues. It solves a symptom of the problem (gun assisted rampages) with very few negative downsides. It also frees up money for more productive usages, though in reality something equally unproductive will take its place.
2:nd amendment doesn't need to go for that but don't see a single relevant reason it should stay either.
|
On May 24 2018 03:40 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2018 03:17 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 02:31 r.Evo wrote:On May 23 2018 22:21 superstartran wrote:On May 23 2018 22:12 Plansix wrote:
Switzerland carefully regulates access to ammo. It's about the same regulations as the United States has. Private ammunition and government ammunition are two separate entities essentially in Switzerland and are thus regulated differently. It's actually very easy to access ammunition as long as you have the required documents (which isn't much different from a background check in the U.S.) Like I said, there are numerous other countries with a very high number of firearms within their countries, and yet they hardly have any school shootings (if any at all). This issue is much more deeply rooted in society, and would require a much more complex solution then just simply saying "let's throw some gun control laws out and call it a day." The "numerous other countries" you keep referring to have a third or less of the amount of guns per capita compared to the US and various legislations in place that people in this very thread are clearly opposed to. Countries like Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Iceland, Germany, Finland or Switzerland are all in the top 20 worldwide - and none of them is even remotely close to the amount of guns that the US has around. Countries that are actually "anti-gun" in some form are way down the list like the UK (6.2 guns per capita) or Japan (0.6 guns per capita). The US is the outlier in the western world, both when it comes to amount of guns in circulation and (non-existing) regulation. You can't just look at Swiss Gun laws and go "Eh, about the same regulation as in the US". That's a poor rebuttal; Switzerland and Canada even though they have less guns per capita than the U.S. still have significantly more guns per capita than most of the Western World. Yet they don't have nearly as many school shootings, not even in the same stratosphere. And it's not like it's similar ratios; we're talking about essentially zero in both of those countries despite a fairly high number of available firearms. But yet you and others always want to claim it's because of the guns that are causing the issue. It's not the guns; it's a much more deeply rooted problem. Ok. So get rid of the vast majority guns if you aren't going to work on those issues. It solves a symptom of the problem (gun assisted rampages) with very few negative downsides. It also frees up money for more productive usages, though in reality something equally unproductive will take its place. 2:nd amendment doesn't need to go for that but don't see a single relevant reason it should stay either.
It's incredibly unrealistic to believe that you could somehow make all guns go magically poof in the United States.
Relevant? You mean like the very large population of gun owners who have done absolutely nothing wrong?
|
On May 24 2018 03:59 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2018 03:40 Yurie wrote:On May 24 2018 03:17 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 02:31 r.Evo wrote:On May 23 2018 22:21 superstartran wrote:On May 23 2018 22:12 Plansix wrote:
Switzerland carefully regulates access to ammo. It's about the same regulations as the United States has. Private ammunition and government ammunition are two separate entities essentially in Switzerland and are thus regulated differently. It's actually very easy to access ammunition as long as you have the required documents (which isn't much different from a background check in the U.S.) Like I said, there are numerous other countries with a very high number of firearms within their countries, and yet they hardly have any school shootings (if any at all). This issue is much more deeply rooted in society, and would require a much more complex solution then just simply saying "let's throw some gun control laws out and call it a day." The "numerous other countries" you keep referring to have a third or less of the amount of guns per capita compared to the US and various legislations in place that people in this very thread are clearly opposed to. Countries like Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Iceland, Germany, Finland or Switzerland are all in the top 20 worldwide - and none of them is even remotely close to the amount of guns that the US has around. Countries that are actually "anti-gun" in some form are way down the list like the UK (6.2 guns per capita) or Japan (0.6 guns per capita). The US is the outlier in the western world, both when it comes to amount of guns in circulation and (non-existing) regulation. You can't just look at Swiss Gun laws and go "Eh, about the same regulation as in the US". That's a poor rebuttal; Switzerland and Canada even though they have less guns per capita than the U.S. still have significantly more guns per capita than most of the Western World. Yet they don't have nearly as many school shootings, not even in the same stratosphere. And it's not like it's similar ratios; we're talking about essentially zero in both of those countries despite a fairly high number of available firearms. But yet you and others always want to claim it's because of the guns that are causing the issue. It's not the guns; it's a much more deeply rooted problem. Ok. So get rid of the vast majority guns if you aren't going to work on those issues. It solves a symptom of the problem (gun assisted rampages) with very few negative downsides. It also frees up money for more productive usages, though in reality something equally unproductive will take its place. 2:nd amendment doesn't need to go for that but don't see a single relevant reason it should stay either. It's incredibly unrealistic to believe that you could somehow make all guns go magically poof in the United States. Relevant? You mean like the very large population of gun owners who have done absolutely nothing wrong?
Australia did it by replacing the "somehow" and "magically" with actual policy because they gave a single fuck when people died, and long before children expected to. But if you're all out of ideas having tried nothing then hey I guess magic will have to do.
|
On May 24 2018 04:08 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2018 03:59 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 03:40 Yurie wrote:On May 24 2018 03:17 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 02:31 r.Evo wrote:On May 23 2018 22:21 superstartran wrote:On May 23 2018 22:12 Plansix wrote:
Switzerland carefully regulates access to ammo. It's about the same regulations as the United States has. Private ammunition and government ammunition are two separate entities essentially in Switzerland and are thus regulated differently. It's actually very easy to access ammunition as long as you have the required documents (which isn't much different from a background check in the U.S.) Like I said, there are numerous other countries with a very high number of firearms within their countries, and yet they hardly have any school shootings (if any at all). This issue is much more deeply rooted in society, and would require a much more complex solution then just simply saying "let's throw some gun control laws out and call it a day." The "numerous other countries" you keep referring to have a third or less of the amount of guns per capita compared to the US and various legislations in place that people in this very thread are clearly opposed to. Countries like Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Iceland, Germany, Finland or Switzerland are all in the top 20 worldwide - and none of them is even remotely close to the amount of guns that the US has around. Countries that are actually "anti-gun" in some form are way down the list like the UK (6.2 guns per capita) or Japan (0.6 guns per capita). The US is the outlier in the western world, both when it comes to amount of guns in circulation and (non-existing) regulation. You can't just look at Swiss Gun laws and go "Eh, about the same regulation as in the US". That's a poor rebuttal; Switzerland and Canada even though they have less guns per capita than the U.S. still have significantly more guns per capita than most of the Western World. Yet they don't have nearly as many school shootings, not even in the same stratosphere. And it's not like it's similar ratios; we're talking about essentially zero in both of those countries despite a fairly high number of available firearms. But yet you and others always want to claim it's because of the guns that are causing the issue. It's not the guns; it's a much more deeply rooted problem. Ok. So get rid of the vast majority guns if you aren't going to work on those issues. It solves a symptom of the problem (gun assisted rampages) with very few negative downsides. It also frees up money for more productive usages, though in reality something equally unproductive will take its place. 2:nd amendment doesn't need to go for that but don't see a single relevant reason it should stay either. It's incredibly unrealistic to believe that you could somehow make all guns go magically poof in the United States. Relevant? You mean like the very large population of gun owners who have done absolutely nothing wrong? Australia did it by replacing the "somehow" and "magically" with actual policy because they gave a single fuck when people died, and long before children expected to. But if you're all out of ideas having tried nothing then hey I guess magic will have to do.
Yeah uh those guns didn't "magically" disappear they still exist in Australia. The idea that all Australians would just turn in their guns is laughable; many of them still have them illegally. And guess what, no mass shootings over there.....
|
On May 24 2018 04:16 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2018 04:08 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On May 24 2018 03:59 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 03:40 Yurie wrote:On May 24 2018 03:17 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 02:31 r.Evo wrote:On May 23 2018 22:21 superstartran wrote:On May 23 2018 22:12 Plansix wrote:
Switzerland carefully regulates access to ammo. It's about the same regulations as the United States has. Private ammunition and government ammunition are two separate entities essentially in Switzerland and are thus regulated differently. It's actually very easy to access ammunition as long as you have the required documents (which isn't much different from a background check in the U.S.) Like I said, there are numerous other countries with a very high number of firearms within their countries, and yet they hardly have any school shootings (if any at all). This issue is much more deeply rooted in society, and would require a much more complex solution then just simply saying "let's throw some gun control laws out and call it a day." The "numerous other countries" you keep referring to have a third or less of the amount of guns per capita compared to the US and various legislations in place that people in this very thread are clearly opposed to. Countries like Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Iceland, Germany, Finland or Switzerland are all in the top 20 worldwide - and none of them is even remotely close to the amount of guns that the US has around. Countries that are actually "anti-gun" in some form are way down the list like the UK (6.2 guns per capita) or Japan (0.6 guns per capita). The US is the outlier in the western world, both when it comes to amount of guns in circulation and (non-existing) regulation. You can't just look at Swiss Gun laws and go "Eh, about the same regulation as in the US". That's a poor rebuttal; Switzerland and Canada even though they have less guns per capita than the U.S. still have significantly more guns per capita than most of the Western World. Yet they don't have nearly as many school shootings, not even in the same stratosphere. And it's not like it's similar ratios; we're talking about essentially zero in both of those countries despite a fairly high number of available firearms. But yet you and others always want to claim it's because of the guns that are causing the issue. It's not the guns; it's a much more deeply rooted problem. Ok. So get rid of the vast majority guns if you aren't going to work on those issues. It solves a symptom of the problem (gun assisted rampages) with very few negative downsides. It also frees up money for more productive usages, though in reality something equally unproductive will take its place. 2:nd amendment doesn't need to go for that but don't see a single relevant reason it should stay either. It's incredibly unrealistic to believe that you could somehow make all guns go magically poof in the United States. Relevant? You mean like the very large population of gun owners who have done absolutely nothing wrong? Australia did it by replacing the "somehow" and "magically" with actual policy because they gave a single fuck when people died, and long before children expected to. But if you're all out of ideas having tried nothing then hey I guess magic will have to do. Yeah uh those guns didn't "magically" disappear they still exist in Australia. The idea that all Australians would just turn in their guns is laughable; many of them still have them illegally. And guess what, no mass shootings over there.....
In the region of 700 000 guns were, in fact, turned in. And while they had had mutliple mass shootings prior, they have had none since. Are you seriously using this as an argument against gun control?
I should listen to my own advice, this is literally pointless.
|
On May 24 2018 04:22 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2018 04:16 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 04:08 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On May 24 2018 03:59 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 03:40 Yurie wrote:On May 24 2018 03:17 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 02:31 r.Evo wrote:On May 23 2018 22:21 superstartran wrote:On May 23 2018 22:12 Plansix wrote:
Switzerland carefully regulates access to ammo. It's about the same regulations as the United States has. Private ammunition and government ammunition are two separate entities essentially in Switzerland and are thus regulated differently. It's actually very easy to access ammunition as long as you have the required documents (which isn't much different from a background check in the U.S.) Like I said, there are numerous other countries with a very high number of firearms within their countries, and yet they hardly have any school shootings (if any at all). This issue is much more deeply rooted in society, and would require a much more complex solution then just simply saying "let's throw some gun control laws out and call it a day." The "numerous other countries" you keep referring to have a third or less of the amount of guns per capita compared to the US and various legislations in place that people in this very thread are clearly opposed to. Countries like Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Iceland, Germany, Finland or Switzerland are all in the top 20 worldwide - and none of them is even remotely close to the amount of guns that the US has around. Countries that are actually "anti-gun" in some form are way down the list like the UK (6.2 guns per capita) or Japan (0.6 guns per capita). The US is the outlier in the western world, both when it comes to amount of guns in circulation and (non-existing) regulation. You can't just look at Swiss Gun laws and go "Eh, about the same regulation as in the US". That's a poor rebuttal; Switzerland and Canada even though they have less guns per capita than the U.S. still have significantly more guns per capita than most of the Western World. Yet they don't have nearly as many school shootings, not even in the same stratosphere. And it's not like it's similar ratios; we're talking about essentially zero in both of those countries despite a fairly high number of available firearms. But yet you and others always want to claim it's because of the guns that are causing the issue. It's not the guns; it's a much more deeply rooted problem. Ok. So get rid of the vast majority guns if you aren't going to work on those issues. It solves a symptom of the problem (gun assisted rampages) with very few negative downsides. It also frees up money for more productive usages, though in reality something equally unproductive will take its place. 2:nd amendment doesn't need to go for that but don't see a single relevant reason it should stay either. It's incredibly unrealistic to believe that you could somehow make all guns go magically poof in the United States. Relevant? You mean like the very large population of gun owners who have done absolutely nothing wrong? Australia did it by replacing the "somehow" and "magically" with actual policy because they gave a single fuck when people died, and long before children expected to. But if you're all out of ideas having tried nothing then hey I guess magic will have to do. Yeah uh those guns didn't "magically" disappear they still exist in Australia. The idea that all Australians would just turn in their guns is laughable; many of them still have them illegally. And guess what, no mass shootings over there..... In the region of 700 000 guns were, in fact, turned in. And while they had had mutliple mass shootings prior, they have had none since. Are you seriously using this as an argument against gun control? I should listen to my own advice, this is literally pointless.
Australia has an estimated same number of guns now as it did during the Port Arthur massacre. The idea that Gun Control laws were solely responsible for that is abit asinine.
|
They just destroyed another +200K fire arms last year, so please provide a citation for that claim.
|
On May 24 2018 04:24 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2018 04:22 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On May 24 2018 04:16 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 04:08 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On May 24 2018 03:59 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 03:40 Yurie wrote:On May 24 2018 03:17 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 02:31 r.Evo wrote:On May 23 2018 22:21 superstartran wrote:On May 23 2018 22:12 Plansix wrote:
Switzerland carefully regulates access to ammo. It's about the same regulations as the United States has. Private ammunition and government ammunition are two separate entities essentially in Switzerland and are thus regulated differently. It's actually very easy to access ammunition as long as you have the required documents (which isn't much different from a background check in the U.S.) Like I said, there are numerous other countries with a very high number of firearms within their countries, and yet they hardly have any school shootings (if any at all). This issue is much more deeply rooted in society, and would require a much more complex solution then just simply saying "let's throw some gun control laws out and call it a day." The "numerous other countries" you keep referring to have a third or less of the amount of guns per capita compared to the US and various legislations in place that people in this very thread are clearly opposed to. Countries like Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Iceland, Germany, Finland or Switzerland are all in the top 20 worldwide - and none of them is even remotely close to the amount of guns that the US has around. Countries that are actually "anti-gun" in some form are way down the list like the UK (6.2 guns per capita) or Japan (0.6 guns per capita). The US is the outlier in the western world, both when it comes to amount of guns in circulation and (non-existing) regulation. You can't just look at Swiss Gun laws and go "Eh, about the same regulation as in the US". That's a poor rebuttal; Switzerland and Canada even though they have less guns per capita than the U.S. still have significantly more guns per capita than most of the Western World. Yet they don't have nearly as many school shootings, not even in the same stratosphere. And it's not like it's similar ratios; we're talking about essentially zero in both of those countries despite a fairly high number of available firearms. But yet you and others always want to claim it's because of the guns that are causing the issue. It's not the guns; it's a much more deeply rooted problem. Ok. So get rid of the vast majority guns if you aren't going to work on those issues. It solves a symptom of the problem (gun assisted rampages) with very few negative downsides. It also frees up money for more productive usages, though in reality something equally unproductive will take its place. 2:nd amendment doesn't need to go for that but don't see a single relevant reason it should stay either. It's incredibly unrealistic to believe that you could somehow make all guns go magically poof in the United States. Relevant? You mean like the very large population of gun owners who have done absolutely nothing wrong? Australia did it by replacing the "somehow" and "magically" with actual policy because they gave a single fuck when people died, and long before children expected to. But if you're all out of ideas having tried nothing then hey I guess magic will have to do. Yeah uh those guns didn't "magically" disappear they still exist in Australia. The idea that all Australians would just turn in their guns is laughable; many of them still have them illegally. And guess what, no mass shootings over there..... In the region of 700 000 guns were, in fact, turned in. And while they had had mutliple mass shootings prior, they have had none since. Are you seriously using this as an argument against gun control? I should listen to my own advice, this is literally pointless. Australia has an estimated same number of guns now as it did during the Port Arthur massacre. The idea that Gun Control laws were solely responsible for that is abit asinine.
Assuming that figure was true it is a decrease by the ratio between 18,31 and 24,13. So a 25% decrease per capita in 18 years?
|
Since we've mentioned swiss gun laws again because of course, I think the idea of having slightly better gun control in general with universal background checks and to make the carry permit MUCH harder to get is interesting for the US.
|
Yeah, i think the people who constantly bring up switzerland should actually take a look at the swiss gun laws, and be it just speedreading the wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland
I highly doubt that that stuff would fly in the US. Government gun registry, no loopholes on selling guns, every sale needs to be registered. Only allowed to actually carry guns in public if you work in some security function or are a hunter and have the relevant permissions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
