Where to go from here? (Possible debate, gun control)

[lauradis]

But it happens a LOT less in places where guns are not legal and readily available--even places where they once were.

Yes but the rise in using other things as weapons just increase.

So yes, you are lowing the death toll? But are you really lowering the violence rate in humans?

 

[NHdisneylover]

And you just hit on another reason this will go nowhere. By admitting that 1, 2, and 3 are part of your ultimate goal, you're not going to get anyone on the other side on board with any of your "first steps".

1, 2 and 3 ARE my fist steps--those are the things we could do quickly if we only got our heads out of the sand and decided we all care enough. The other cultural shift in how things are viewed and people are educated, etc would take longer to implement even if all laws were passed tomorrow, and would take even longer to show results.

That is my opinion based on research, and living in the US, and living in Spain and living in Germany and speaking at length with people who live any many different places and how guns are handled where they are and looking into rates of violence and gun deaths, etc. Why wouldn't I "admit" I feel that way?

 

[Disneyliscious]

1. outlaw the sale of (and manufacture of) any automatic or semi-automatic firearms. Allow existing ones to remain with their owners, but require registration and a permit and have a buy back program to encourage more of them to go out of circulation.

All this does is affect responsible gun owners. You can outlaw semi auto and auto till youre blue in the face and it won't take them out of the hands of criminals. Criminals do not follow the law so the law has no effect.

3. get rid of open and concealed carry. Legal uses for guns should be limited to hunting, target practice, etc with a license (hunting) or reserved target practice time scheduled, and you can only be transporting away from home when on the way to one of these things (and since you must have a reservation, it is clear if you are really going there).

This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard of. Again, this will only affect responsible and legal gun owners. It does nothing to stop criminals.

I cannot stress enough - Criminals do not follow the law. Thats why they are criminals. Tougher gun laws will not stop a criminal. Period.

Guns are not the problem. Parenting is the problem. When parents can stop working numerous jobs so they can keep up with the Jones and spend more time at home raising their kids, then you'll see changes. When we support programs to help the single parent so they dont HAVE to work 3 jobs, then you'll see changes. Most every problem this nation sees can be rooted back to parenting. Taking the parent out of the home was the worst thing that ever happened to this country.

Teach your kids responsibility and respect = a whole lot of problems solved.

Even if you don't like guns, supporting your 2nd amendment right is something your children and grandchildren will thank you for. Preserve their rights because you dont know what this world will be like in 50 or 100 years. Imagine a world where your newly born grandchild is 50 years old and terrorists raid their home. Do you want them to fight back with a knife? THIS is why we need to oppose stricter gun laws. Because once it starts they'll keep going until we can't own them anymore. Its not just about us. Its about our future generations.

 

[NHdisneylover]

Yes but the rise in using other things as weapons just increase.

So yes, you are lowing the death toll? But are you really lowering the violence rate in humans?

That's where the other. longer term, things I mentioned come in. MANY cultures do have much lower violent crime rates overall than the US. Not just lower gun violence. There are tons of reasons for this and we have a good body of research to have a pretty firm idea of at least some of the whys (from what we teach in kindergarten to whether we take a punitive or rehabilitative to criminals, to better mental health care, etc).

In the meantime, we can vastly lower the overall death rate from attempts at violent crime by getting the weapon that can kill the most people the fastest out of the hands of the general population.

 

[Vaughn4380]

Yeah, because when you only need to drive 30 minutes to go somewhere with completely different laws it isn't difficult to circumvent those laws.

So you admit criminals violate the laws by circumventing them, and your solution is to punish those living in neighboring communities with additional laws? Sounds like you want to punish the law abiding for the actions of criminals.

If gun control worked Chicago should be the safest city in the world. The State of Illinois already has extensive background checks for all gun owners in the state, mandatory training classes, waiting periods, and owner identification and registration cards for all gun owners in the state as well. The City of Chicago used to ban all guns completely from lawful ownership. A recent Supreme Court case ruled they had to allow law abiding residents to keep a loaded gun in their home (still not allowed to carry the gun outside of the home), and the city enacted some very tough rules in response banning semi-auto, full-auto, and most pump-action firearms, basically limiting Chicago residents to single shot firearms and revolvers. Yet, the criminals are still murdering residents. Gun control does not work. You need criminal control.

 

[Disneyliscious]

In the meantime, we can vastly lower the overall death rate from attempts at violent crime by getting the weapon that can kill the most people the fastest out of the hands of the general population.

That does not get the weapon out of the hands of criminals though. It does not solve the problem. Criminals do not follow laws.

 

[NHdisneylover]

All this does is affect responsible gun owners. You can outlaw semi auto and auto till youre blue in the face and it won't take them out of the hands of criminals. Criminals do not follow the law so the law has no effect.



This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard of. Again, this will only affect responsible and legal gun owners. It does nothing to stop criminals.

I cannot stress enough - Criminals do not follow the law. Thats why they are criminals. Tougher gun laws will not stop a criminal. Period.

Guns are not the problem. Parenting is the problem. When parents can stop working numerous jobs so they can keep up with the Jones and spend more time at home raising their kids, then you'll see changes. Most every problem this nation sees can be rooted back to parenting.

Teach your kids responsibility and respect = a whole lot of problems solved.

But many, many gun deaths are not from people who are criminal most of the time, It is that split second things when an argument over texting in a movie theatre turns into someone being shot to death, the "self defense" that goes way over the top, or a perceived threat which is not even there being dealt with with deadly force, etc. AND, simply having few guns readily accessible does mean that fewer will get into criminal hands (harder to steal, more costly on the black market, etc)--plus it adds to the culture of fear and retaliation which is, in my opinion, mostly at the core of this issue.

Basically, IMO, the guns should only legally to be out at certain times and loaded only in certain places (shooting ranges, and hunting areas when hunting with a license). I feel, if enforced (breaking the law ought to deprive you of your gun licence, and guns, for several years to permanently IMO--not jail time or fines) this would greatly reduce accidental gun death, suicide by guns (harder for a non owner to get ahold of one and ammunition), and "unplanned" criminal death by guns.

It'S my opinion, and it is close to how guns are handled in many other places--ridiculous or not much of the world has managed to do it this way (or similarly, anyway) and, amazingly, have much less gun violence, gun suicides, accidental shooting deaths, etc.

 

[Vaughn4380]

They have gun safety licensing in Chicago? I didn't know that. I need to do some reading on that. That's a great step and hopefully they'll see some benefit.

Regrading gun violence in geneal on the South Side, I don't have an answer for that except to say it goes beyond mere gun control laws and encompasses something that needs psychologists and psychiatrists more than police officers. Those communities need help to end the violence and if it's not with guns (which make it easy, admittedly) it will be with someone else.

Former South Side resident here, the paperwork, background checks (multiple), and training classes required to obtain a legal gun was a six month process for me, and I was in law enforcement. After all of that I was limited in what I was allowed to buy (basically revolvers, no semi-auto like the police carry). Yet, the criminals always seemed to have access to guns that were banned, a few that were caught admitted they bought their guns from crooked police officers. So I am very hesitant to believe banning anything will actually reduce the number in circulation.

When we moved to Ohio, I was able to buy a shotgun at Walmart and it only took fifteen minutes. Yet, we have considerably less crime in our cities then Chicago has.

 

[lauradis]

That's where the other. longer term, things I mentioned come in. MANY cultures do have much lower violent crime rates overall than the US. Not just lower gun violence. There are tons of reasons for this and we have a good body of research to have a pretty firm idea of at least some of the whys (from what we teach in kindergarten to whether we take a punitive or rehabilitative to criminals, to better mental health care, etc).

In the meantime, we can vastly lower the overall death rate from attempts at violent crime by getting the weapon that can kill the most people the fastest out of the hands of the general population.

America has its gun violence for sure. But our bombing rates are lower

Violence is Violence, no matter what weapon is used.

We will have to agree to agree to disagree on this one.

A simple shot gun has saved my life twice, I will never give up my guns to the government.

How about this we empty the for profit jails, turn them back over to state run jails, empty all the drug users out and make jail a work program for violent offenders, with the worst sentences for guns used in crimes?

 

[Disneyliscious]

But many, many gun deaths are not from people who are criminal most of the time, It is that split second things when an argument over texting in a movie theatre turns into someone being shot to death,

Casualties will always happen. No amount of laws or absence of laws will stop this. But the pros outweigh the cons here. Recently a woman was being carjacked and beaten. Her attacker was killed by a regular person walking by who happened to have a CCW. If he were limited on when/where he could use his gun or when/where he could load it, he would have had to stand there and watch that woman be attacked, maybe even killed.

I understand where your sentiment comes from but its not a logical solution. Restricting responsible gun owners does nothing to stop criminals. It actually helps the criminals. Nothing will ever stop the heated moment violence. Those things just happen unfortunately.

 

[Vaughn4380]

Body armor penetrating bullets? No. Semi-automatic weapons? No. Hunting rifles? Yes. Hand guns that hold a few rounds? Yes.

Well you are not even starting the conversation in a reasonable manner. The second amendment does not have a limit to start with and the supreme court has ruled it guarantees law abiding US citizens have a right to own and use firearms. Most hunting rifles sold are semi-automatic (or did you mean fully automatic? which have already been banned since 1986?). Most rifle bullets above .22 lr will penetrate body armor, so you basically want to ban all rifles in America. And how many rounds is a "few"? Five? Four? One? I doubt the criminals will turn their handguns that already hold 17.

I have a rifle I use on camping trips in Alaska for protection from large predators, it is a .375 H&H magnum. I carry it so I can stop something large and angry from eating me. The round will go through several armor vests. You would prefer I become a snack for a bear rather than have the ability to protect myself. That is NOT a reasonable conversation.

 

[Vaughn4380]

Basically, IMO, the guns should only legally to be out at certain times and loaded only in certain places (shooting ranges, and hunting areas when hunting with a license). I feel, if enforced (breaking the law ought to deprive you of your gun licence, and guns, for several years to permanently IMO--not jail time or fines) this would greatly reduce accidental gun death, suicide by guns (harder for a non owner to get ahold of one and ammunition), and "unplanned" criminal death by guns.

Your opinion has been over-ruled by our supreme court, twice now. You are going to have to realize your opinion is subservient to our constitution and courts.

 

[lauradis]

That's where the other. longer term, things I mentioned come in. MANY cultures do have much lower violent crime rates overall than the US. Not just lower gun violence. There are tons of reasons for this and we have a good body of research to have a pretty firm idea of at least some of the whys (from what we teach in kindergarten to whether we take a punitive or rehabilitative to criminals, to better mental health care, etc).

In the meantime, we can vastly lower the overall death rate from attempts at violent crime by getting the weapon that can kill the most people the fastest out of the hands of the general population.

totally agree on the mental heath issues, but disboard doesn't like me preaching that. over 90% of school shootings have two things in common a gun and a shooter on a mental health drug. but lets not talk about the other side of the problem. Guns are bad, but drugging our children is good.

 

[Bec3b1g]

I never thought I would need one, but I do have a concealed weapons permit. I got it about 2 years ago after an employee of mine was involved in a domestic violence situation and it spilled over into our workplace.

I'm not sure how else we could have handled the situation. We kept the doors locked, the employee had a protective order, nobody was allowed to exit the building alone, and we consulted with our local law enforcement. It was very unsettling.

 

[Domo]

That does not get the weapon out of the hands of criminals though. It does not solve the problem. Criminals do not follow laws.

Why make it easy for them though?

Over here it is insanely difficult even to get a .22 and even then the laws surrounding them - storage and so on - are ridiculously stringent. I wouldn't have them any other way.

 

[IndyRnRfan]

It's funny, the areas with the most gun laws also have the most gun crimes. When will people put two and two together.

This church massacre was sad but there have been times where that many people have died in Chicago, Oakland, LA in one night. I never here much about those but hey it's only black on black or Latino on Latino so it's not that big of deal. But hell or high water when whites kill blacks or Latinos it's a freaking crisis and everybody is a racist and we need to ban all guns and take away the second amendment and it's gun owners faults.

 

[IndyRnRfan]

Why make it easy for them though?

Over here it is insanely difficult even to get a .22 and even then the laws surrounding them - storage and so on - are ridiculously stringent. I wouldn't have them any other way.

That works in your country, will not work here. As soon as criminals know normal citizens can't or it is too difficult to buy a gun, then crime will sky rocket.

There's an old saying in America, "an armed person is a citizen, an unarmed person is a subject". This is also true of ither countries. I will always be a citizen until I die regardless of any law passed until I die.

 

[Topper]

People say "Well Australia banned guns and they have very little crime". Australia never had the amounts of guns we have in America. They are a small continent compared to us.

 

[Disneyliscious]

Do you the difference in a continent and a country? Our borders affect us. Our continent is larger than Australia.

 

[NHdisneylover]

Do you the difference in a continent and a country? Our borders affect us. Our continent is larger than Australia.

You are right, borders affect this. This is why the arguments about how gun control in Chicago has not lowered gun crime is so silly--there is not a single controlled border between Chicago and the rest of the US--only national laws will really have an effect.