Gun Control - Your stance, views, and recent developments

[The Pikachu Mafia]

@Haunted Water: Unfortunately you are correct, the American civil war was a great example of this as well and I enjoyed watching the video. I'm not saying that we would have success if such an event came to light, nor am I stating that I am an advocate for war. I knew that such a feat was practically impossible from the beginning (even if we did sort of hold them off for a bit, they'd just throw a few nukes at us and be done with it). I'm just saying that death wish or not, people would try it if they felt that their rights were being violated. It would be a similar case to the Hungarian Freedom Fighters (or the Hungarian Revolution) and I know that there is no one here who wants that. So don't ban guns guys, please.

@Pokequaza: There's a first time for everything as the saying goes. I didn't know you were talking about established democracies, but just because it never happened before doesn't mean we are safe from such an event happening in the future. Also while they have gun control laws as well, Canada, Ireland, and Australia allow guns and it would be a step up from total gun restriction. That type of total restriction hints at a communist dictatorship and I don't believe you, I, or anyone else here wants to live in that kind of country (If you want to know what it's like in a communist country I suggest reading books done by Eric Arthur Blair, aka George Orwell. Especially the novels Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm. Even though his books are fiction he constantly painted what it was like to live in communist conditions, not a pretty site at all.)

 

[Pokequaza]

@Pokequaza: There's a first time for everything as the saying goes. I didn't know you were talking about established democracies, but just because it never happened before doesn't mean we are safe from such an event happening in the future. Also while they have gun control laws as well, Canada, Ireland, and Australia allow guns and it would be a step up from total gun restriction. That type of total restriction hints at a communist dictatorship and I don't believe you, I, or anyone else here wants to live in that kind of country (If you want to know what it's like in a communist country I suggest reading books done by Eric Arthur Blair, aka George Orwell. Especially the novels Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm. Even though his books are fiction he constantly painted what it was like to live in communist conditions, not a pretty site at all.)

Australian citizens have no right to own firearms, with exceptions for those whose job requires them to have one; i.e. policemen. Although several exceptions exist, such as owning a gun for hunting, one should still apply for a permit. Self-defence (the major arguement in the USA against the gun control laws) does not below in the category of exceptions, and is by law prohibited.

Ireland does have one of the least permissive legislation on gun control. However certificates are part of the deal, it is not uncontrolled, and the law prohibits a lot of guns by default. Although it works surprisingly well in Ireland, there are concerns about the national safety, as numbers of deaths by firearms seem to rise. In 2009, Ireland has strenghtened their laws on gun control; all guns must be registred and the possesion and use in public areas is prohibited.

The same story goes for Canada, gun ownership is controlled and allowed, however restricted, as numerous firearms are prohibited.

And as far as I am aware the bill for gun control in the USA would not prohibit the possession of every gun, small guns would still be allowed. Let me do a quick search of the actual proposals:

The proposed congressional actions included:
- Require background checks for all gun sales, including those by private individuals.
- Pass a new, stronger ban on "assault weapons".
- Limit magazines to 10 rounds.
- Ban the possession of armor-piercing bullets.
- Provide financing for improved mental health coverage, particularly for young people.
- Provide funding for schools to develop emergency response plans.
The executive actions included:
- Improve the data used for the background check system for gun sales.
- Direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence.
- Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
- Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.

It is not about ''taking away'' the safety of people, the ban tries to protect them from firearm crimes, as it is well known that the gun culture of the USA is one of the more problematic.

 

[Haunted Water]

lol facepalm.
I think I already stated in this topic that nuking your own citizens is asking for economic sanctions from the UN. At this point, I barely understand what side you are on, TPM. I barely understand anything from you. Could you clarify please?
Also, Poke, I think the Irish may have those stats because they may have inluded IRA-related gun deaths. I'm not sure, but it's entirely possible.

 

[The Pikachu Mafia]

It is not about ''taking away'' the safety of people, the ban tries to protect them from firearm crimes, as it is well known that the gun culture of the USA is one of the more problematic.

And this is what I'm worried about right here. How would these laws protect us? Are you trying to tell me the criminals are law abiding citizens, or are you saying that that the everyday American becomes a cereal killer if they posses guns? Either way you put it, it's not going to add up. At the end of the day the only thing these laws are going to do is make it easier for a criminal (who probably gets his/her gun illegally anyways) to kill a defenseless person.

Edit: @Haunted Water: I don't really understand what you mean or say either anymore so the feeling is mutual... I think all guns should be legal and Gun restriction laws are stupid, to make it plain and clear. (also why should the government care if they throw nukes at people who revoked their citizenship? I mean they're not really bombing their own people if the people openly said that they are no longer part of the US. Also that was just an example...)

 

[Elite Stride]

@r3skyline

1. Assumptions that derive from common knowledge aren't harmful. Besides, you keep saying assumptions are the devil, but this is an assumption too:

If someone says free speech, they expect to say whatever the hell they want to.

2. I, of all people, don't need a lecture on the fundamentals of management.Trust me.
3. I never deliberately insulted you. Insults are never appropriate for debate. If, for whatever reason you did find something insulting, It was not intended and I apologize.
4. TPM was talking about a restriction. How? Because within the context of this thread we are talking about restrictions being placed on firearms. Under the constitution, a complete ban on guns is out of the question. Here's the key phrase in his sentence:

(or even if we severely restrict them)

5. Idk why bringing up an arrest for saying that to a cop is even relevant unless there are actual consequences, which there wouldn't be because you have a right to use whatever speech you want towards a cop. A simple arrest means nothing.



Because this is becoming off topic, and because it's obvious we aren't seeing eye to eye, we are either going to have to respectfully agree to disagree, or you can feel free to PM me or post on my profile if you wish.

@everyone
A few of us have all been going off on slightly separate topics, and although that is fine in moderation, lets keep the main topic in focus.

 

[Haunted Water]

Gun restriction laws aren't stupid. Most aren't thought out well, and are products of hasty work, but the one that is intelligent is the mandatory background check. I'm perfectly fine with background checks.
Also, TPM, I just remembered: in order to even launch a nuke, UN has to approve of the action.
Meaning, USA nuking rebels is not possible, unless it poses a direct threa to global security interests. I think a bunch of rebels who aren't heavily armed do not constitute as a threat to the global security interests of the United Nations.

 

[Pokequaza]

And this is what I'm worried about right here. How would these laws protect us? Are you trying to tell me the criminals are law abiding citizens, or are you saying that that the everyday American becomes a cereal killer if they posses guns? Either way you put it, it's not going to add up. At the end of the day the only thing these laws are going to do is make it easier for a criminal (who probably gets his/her gun illegally anyways) to kill a defenseless person.

Edit: @Haunted Water: I don't really understand what you mean or say either anymore so the feeling is mutual... I think all guns should be legal and Gun restriction laws are stupid, to make it plain and clear. (also why should the government care if they throw nukes at people who revoked their citizenship? I mean they're not really bombing their own people if the people openly said that they are no longer part of the US. Also that was just an example...)

I do not know what kind of movies you have been watching, but governments do not just nuke other people for disagreeing with them.

Then try to explain why the death rate per 100,000 citizens by firearms are substantially lower in countries with gun control policies, and why more effective and strict policies lower this rate even further.

The problem here is that you assume that criminals do not follow the law, which does sound logical, but is not true. By your assumption, that every criminal just does what he wants to do, the laws themselves would serve no point. Explain to my as well, the assumption you have just sketched, what the point is of having laws and rules if people who do not want to obey them, will not follow them to begin with.

 

[The Pikachu Mafia]

The definition of a criminal is someone who breaks - or is convicted of breaking - the law. So you're saying that criminals both break the law and follow the same ones they've broken at the same time? If that's so then I would be forced to do a very epic facepalm right about now, and that doesn't even answer my question. Criminals couldn't care less about the law. Also several times throughout multiple threads you seem to think that I'm getting my information from movies, where are you getting that idea from? For the last time I don't use any movies as a source, not even documentaries. The US could very well nuke anyone they want to, I'm not saying they would but they could.

Getting back on topic, in 2011 the United Nations put together a global study on homicide and did a list of the 20 most violent countries in the world on terms of homicide, the US didn't even rank. Also the the US had 14,748 Homicides in the year of 2012. So in every 100,000 people there was 4.8 Homicides. Now lets compare that Homicide rate to other countries:

United Kingdom: 1.2 per 100,000
United States: 4.8 per 100,000
Ukraine: 5.2 per 100,000
Philippines: 5.4 per 100,000
Russia: 10.2 per 100,000
North Korea: 15.2 per 100,000
Greenland: 19.2 per 100,000
Mexico: 22.7 per 100,000

These are just a few countries with higher homicide rates than the US, I could get many more if you want. On top of that pretty much every country in the Middle East/Virtually every third world country has a higher homicide rate than the US. Although Europe has a lower homicide rate in general (the UK, France, Ireland, Italy, etc.) that's not directly due to gun control laws. Gun control laws may mean less gun related deaths but they don't mean less deaths in general. The US actually has a very low homicide rate for the size of it's population (we're the 3rd most populated country in the world). Now lets compare that to Russia, a country with gun restrictions in effect (also the 8th most populated country in the world). As you can see, there's a much higher homicide rate in Russia than in the US. So in other words, Gun laws /=/ fewer deaths. Sure it might mean fewer gun related deaths, but not fewer deaths in general. People will kill people with or without guns, in fact guns are just a means to an end and don't do anything to directly effect the overall homicide rate. So what would gun restriction laws really do if the homicide rate remains the same or even increases? We could vote on gun laws if we were a real democracy, from what I've seen here, read on the internet, and experienced in the world it seems that about 60-70% of people are against gun restrictions in the US. No I'm not getting this randomly from out of my head or from a movie.

tl;dr version:

Gun restrictions do nothing to help the actual homicide rate, they only help with gun related deaths, nothing else.

 

[Pokequaza]

The definition of a criminal is someone who breaks - or is convicted of breaking - the law. So you're saying that criminals both break the law and follow the same ones they've broken at the same time? If that's so then I would be forced to do a very epic facepalm right about now, and that doesn't even answer my question. Criminals couldn't care less about the law. Also several times throughout multiple threads you seem to think that I'm getting my information from movies, where are you getting that idea from? For the last time I don't use any movies as a source, not even documentaries. The US could very well nuke anyone they want to, I'm not saying they would but they could.

Getting back on topic, in 2011 the United Nations put together a global study on homicide and did a list of the 20 most violent countries in the world on terms of homicide, the US didn't even rank. Also the the US had 14,748 Homicides in the year of 2012. So in every 100,000 people there was 4.8 Homicides. Now lets compare that Homicide rate to other countries:

United Kingdom: 1.2 per 100,000
United States: 4.8 per 100,000
Ukraine: 5.2 per 100,000
Philippines: 5.4 per 100,000
Russia: 10.2 per 100,000
North Korea: 15.2 per 100,000
Greenland: 19.2 per 100,000
Mexico: 22.7 per 100,000

These are just a few countries with higher homicide rates than the US, I could get many more if you want. On top of that pretty much every country in the Middle East/Virtually every third world country has a higher homicide rate than the US. Although Europe has a lower homicide rate in general (the UK, France, Ireland, Italy, etc.) that's not directly due to gun control laws. Gun control laws may mean less gun related deaths but they don't mean less deaths in general. The US actually has a very low homicide rate for the size of it's population (we're the 3rd most populated country in the world). Now lets compare that to Russia, a country with gun restrictions in effect (also the 8th most populated country in the world). As you can see, there's a much higher homicide rate in Russia than in the US. So in other words, Gun laws /=/ fewer deaths. Sure it might mean fewer gun related deaths, but not fewer deaths in general. People will kill people with or without guns, in fact guns are just a means to an end and don't do anything to directly effect the overall homicide rate. So what would gun restriction laws really do if the homicide rate remains the same or even increases? We could vote on gun laws if we were a real democracy, from what I've seen here, read on the internet, and experienced in the world it seems that about 60-70% of people are against gun restrictions in the US. No I'm not getting this randomly from out of my head or from a movie.

tl;dr version:

Gun restrictions do nothing to help the actual homicide rate, they only help with gun related deaths, nothing else.

I said that introducing a law seems to affect those which would have commited crimes otherwise. A question you still have not answered.

The problem I have with that list is that the data varies by country. You would have known if you read a little further; the data may or may not include acts as euthanasia, infanticide, and assited suicide as well. Since this debate is gun policies and their effects we should limit ourselves to that, and we should not talk about euthanasia.

Also, the size and population of a country does not matter, as the numbers are given in deaths per 100,000 citizens, all population sizes are made equal in this way, and cannot be taken in account anymore.

A proper list of homicide death-rates by firearms with data gathered from OAS 2011*, UNODC 2011**, and WHO 2012***;

1. Jamaica - 47.44
2. Honduras - 46.70
3. El Salvador - 39.90
4. Guatemala - 38.59
5. Swaziland - 37.16
6. Brazil - 18.10
7. South Africa - 17.00
8. Colombia - 10.00
9. Mexico - 10.00
10. Panama - 9.92
11. Philippines - 9.46
12. Paraguay - 7.35
13. Nicaragua - 7.14
14. Zimbabwe - 4.75
15. Costa Rica - 3.32
16. Uruguay - 3.24
17. United States - 3.20
18. Argentina - 3.00
19. Barbados - 3.00
20. Chile - 2.20
...
27. Luxembourg - 0.60
28. Greece - 0.59
...
32. Switzerland - 0.52
33. Canada - 0.50
...
35. Portugal - 0.48
...
38. Italy - 0.36
...
40. Ireland - 0.36

Luxembourg is the first European country to check in at 0.60 firearm-related homicides per 100.000. United Kingdom scores as low as 0.04. They do affect the homicide rates, as a knife or any other non-firearm weapon is nearly not as effective as a gun.

* http://www.oas.org/en/default.asp
** http://www.unodc.org/
*** http://www.who.int/en/

 

[The Pikachu Mafia]

I said that introducing a law seems to affect those which would have commited crimes otherwise. A question you still have not answered.

That's not a question. Even if it was meant to be one you brought it out as a statement, so how was I supposed to know that it was a question? I'll answer it anyways though, if I'm guessing right this was your question:

Explain to my as well, the assumption you have just sketched, what the point is of having laws and rules if people who do not want to obey them, will not follow them to begin with.

Well we do have a court, police, and prison for a reason. We can't stop people from disobeying the law, but we can try and make a set of fair rules designed to protect those who are helpless and punish those who brakes the rules to put it simply. Unfortunately gun restriction laws don't protect the helpless though, they just take one more line of defense away from the people and make them less independent. Now it's your turn, please answer my question without saying "you're assuming this" or "you're assuming that" and I'd be pretty grateful.

The problem I have with that list is that the data varies by country. You would have known if you read a little further; the data may or may not include acts as euthanasia, infanticide, and assited suicide as well. Since this debate is gun policies and their effects we should limit ourselves to that, and we should not talk about euthanasia.

Why should we limit ourselves to debating over gun related deaths only? Gun related deaths can also include all those things you mentioned, so the results will be just as inaccurate. On top of that we've already established that countries with gun laws have fewer gun related deaths, so now we must examine if it's affecting the overall homicide rate. If it isn't then criminals are just finding other ways to do their dirty work. Therefore comparing the homicide rate of the US (the country this whole debate is based off of with little to no gun laws) and Russia (a country with plenty of gun laws) is perfectly fine and logical. So going by that, I don't see how our homicide rates are "omg so bad!!!1 we need to liek ban gunz noaw!" when many countries have a much higher homicide rate with gun restriction laws in effect. Looking at how many people are killed only via guns per year is nice, but if you want to talk about guns affecting how many people are killed per year with or without them, then you're going to have to look at the big picture which is annual homicide rates.

Also, the size and population of a country does not matter, as the numbers are given in deaths per 100,000 citizens, all population sizes are made equal in this way, and cannot be taken in account anymore.

I agree. The only reason why I mentioned the size of the country is because I wanted to compare the US to a non communist country of similar size.

They do affect the homicide rates, as a knife or any other non-firearm weapon is nearly not as effective as a gun.

A weapon is a weapon, a knife can be more deadly than a gun in the hands of an experienced owner that's just common sense.

 

[r3skyline]

FYI, you can take down an assailant from 20ft or less who has a gun. This is a proven fact.

 

[Pokequaza]

I said that introducing a law seems to affect those which would have commited crimes otherwise. A question you still have not answered.

That's not a question. Even if it was meant to be one you brought it out as a statement, so how was I supposed to know that it was a question? I'll answer it anyways though, if I'm guessing right this was your question:

Explain to my as well, the assumption you have just sketched, what the point is of having laws and rules if people who do not want to obey them, will not follow them to begin with.

Well we do have a court, police, and prison for a reason. We can't stop people from disobeying the law, but we can try and make a set of fair rules designed to protect those who are helpless and punish those who brakes the rules to put it simply. Unfortunately gun restriction laws don't protect the helpless though, they just take one more line of defense away from the people and make them less independent. Now it's your turn, please answer my question without saying "you're assuming this" or "you're assuming that" and I'd be pretty grateful.

The problem I have with that list is that the data varies by country. You would have known if you read a little further; the data may or may not include acts as euthanasia, infanticide, and assited suicide as well. Since this debate is gun policies and their effects we should limit ourselves to that, and we should not talk about euthanasia.

Why should we limit ourselves to debating over gun related deaths only? Gun related deaths can also include all those things you mentioned, so the results will be just as inaccurate. On top of that we've already established that countries with gun laws have fewer gun related deaths, so now we must examine if it's affecting the overall homicide rate. If it isn't then criminals are just finding other ways to do their dirty work. Therefore comparing the homicide rate of the US (the country this whole debate is based off of with little to no gun laws) and Russia (a country with plenty of gun laws) is perfectly fine and logical. So going by that, I don't see how our homicide rates are "omg so bad!!!1 we need to liek ban gunz noaw!" when many countries have a much higher homicide rate with gun restriction laws in effect. Looking at how many people are killed only via guns per year is nice, but if you want to talk about guns affecting how many people are killed per year with or without them, then you're going to have to look at the big picture which is annual homicide rates.

Also, the size and population of a country does not matter, as the numbers are given in deaths per 100,000 citizens, all population sizes are made equal in this way, and cannot be taken in account anymore.

I agree. The only reason why I mentioned the size of the country is because I wanted to compare the US to a non communist country of similar size.

They do affect the homicide rates, as a knife or any other non-firearm weapon is nearly not as effective as a gun.

A weapon is a weapon, a knife can be more deadly than a gun in the hands of an experienced owner that's just common sense.

Well first you will get your answer; these laws will protect citizens just like they protect you from theft. Exactly like that. How do laws that ban theft protect citizens? I do not know, perhaps the fact that people do want to avoid the consequenses? I am not a psychologist.

You keep comparing the USA with Russia, a country that is broken and disorganised anyway. Indeed Russia has problems with their death-rates due to firearms, but it has problems with everything. The example I gave you is that the vast majority of western European countries have proper working gun policies, and as s result their homicide rate by firearms is significantly smaller, it works there, just as it works in the majority of countries with actual gun policies.

Now you may say; Well, in a few countries these laws have not any effect. You are correct, they have little effect, but that does not change the fact that the chance of these gun policies succeeding is far bigger than them failing.

Why do we talk about gun related deaths only? Because that is what this debate is about, an overdose of morfine to euthanise an old woman, which would have been her own choice, is not affected by whether a gun policy exists or not. It depends on the country, some countries allow for euthanasia, and therefore their ''homicide'' rate will be higher, however this has nothing to do with gun policies.

''A weapon is a weapon.'' I rather have someone running towards with equiped with a stick than someone with a fully automatic rifle. It is not ''common sense''. Yes some people would be able to kill more effective with a knife, however, again, the vast majority does not have this skill, and when it comes to killing people, they usually are better of with a gun.

 

[r3skyline]

I rather have someone running towards with equiped with a stick than someone with a fully automatic rifle.

Id rather the other way around. If that person is running full speed at you with a cut spring to make it an full auto rifle, high chances are, that person will miss you.

 

[The Pikachu Mafia]

This is going to be hard to explain but for some reason many Americans like guns. I don't know how to explain it better but taking away a right like that just doesn't sit well with us.

Democracy and liberty are often thought to be the same thing, but they are not. Democracy means that people ought to be able to vote for public officials in fair elections, and make most political decisions by majority rule. Liberty, on the other hand, means that even in a democracy, individuals have rights that no majority should be able to take away.

(this quote was from a great article about the Bill of Rights that you can read here. Just fyi)

So when you say we should restrict guns in America, you're saying we should give up a part of our liberty. Not only will it make us more defenseless against people with guns and potentially make this country a more dangerous place, but it will also take us down morally. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect us if the government got too big, so why are we even trying to compromise it?

I still don't get why you insist on only talking about gun related deaths when sooner or later you have to see how they'll effect the overall homicide rate both with and without guns. Almost 100% of the time weapon related death rates will be lower if you ban them, but the overall homicide rate most likely wont change. Also just thought I'd point this out again since you ignored it the first time, you can euthanize people with guns and it's not always going to happen in a hospital bed. So only looking at gun related deaths is just as inaccurate as watching the overall homicide rate. Finally you'll just get straight up false results if you only look at one of the many factors. It's like skipping a step in a math equation, the answers will often be wrong and you'll have to go back, find where you made the mistake, and fix it. Except when you're playing with people's lives and liberties you can't afford to make those kind of mistakes, not even in a simple debate.

 

[Pokequaza]

This is going to be hard to explain but for some reason many Americans like guns. I don't know how to explain it better but taking away a right like that just doesn't sit well with us.

Democracy and liberty are often thought to be the same thing, but they are not. Democracy means that people ought to be able to vote for public officials in fair elections, and make most political decisions by majority rule. Liberty, on the other hand, means that even in a democracy, individuals have rights that no majority should be able to take away.

(this quote was from a great article about the Bill of Rights that you can read here. Just fyi)

So when you say we should restrict guns in America, you're saying we should give up a part of our liberty. Not only will it make us more defenseless against people with guns and potentially make this country a more dangerous place, but it will also take us down morally. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect us if the government got too big, so why are we even trying to compromise it?

I still don't get why you insist on only talking about gun related deaths when sooner or later you have to see how they'll effect the overall homicide rate both with and without guns. Almost 100% of the time weapon related death rates will be lower if you ban them, but the overall homicide rate most likely wont change. Also just thought I'd point this out again since you ignored it the first time, you can euthanize people with guns and it's not always going to happen in a hospital bed. So only looking at gun related deaths is just as inaccurate as watching the overall homicide rate. Finally you'll just get straight up false results if you only look at one of the many factors. It's like skipping a step in a math equation, the answers will often be wrong and you'll have to go back, find where you made the mistake, and fix it. Except when you're playing with people's lives and liberties you can't afford to make those kind of mistakes, not even in a simple debate.

Suicide, euthanasia and related acts do not kill other people except for those whose choice it is to die. Therefore, I do not see why we should look at that. If they do not want to live anymore, fine, they will not hurt other people physically by taking their own life. It is their choice. Since these are included within the homicide rates I do not see why we still bother looking at those numbers as it also includes acts as suicide and euthanasia as well. And even if they are included in the gun related deaths, they will find other ways to take their life, even after proper gun control. However, the other category, the category of active murderers, those with the intention to kill innocent people, will lower as a result of gun control. It works in Europe, why would it not work in the USA?

Also, the definition you just gave of liberty does not exist on this planet. You say that the 50-55% of people who do not support the bill for gun control will get their liberty taken away if the bill passes. Let us assume the bill will not make it all the way through, there will be still a 45-49% of people who get their liberty taken away as well, because their vote suddenly does not count anymore. I do not have a problem with this, this is how democracy works, but you just said that liberty also takes the individuals in account, and does not listen to the majority. That is not going to happen, choices have to be made about every subject, and yes, the majority always wins in a real democracy. Liberty, how great it may sound, belongs to an impossible utopia.

 

[Haunted Water]

/me agrees.
Suicide by guns isn't supposed to be used as a statistic for gun control. It's a stat for suicide prevention.

 

[The Pikachu Mafia]

Suicide, euthanasia and related acts do not kill other people except for those whose choice it is to die. Therefore, I do not see why we should look at that. If they do not want to live anymore, fine, they will not hurt other people physically by taking their own life. It is their choice. Since these are included within the homicide rates I do not see why we still bother looking at those numbers as it also includes acts as suicide and euthanasia as well. And even if they are included in the gun related deaths, they will find other ways to take their life, even after proper gun control.

You know that goes both ways. People will find a way to kill people intentionally without guns too. Also I thought that by your logic the suicide rates would go down because "guns are more efficient than other weapons." So then by that logic it's fine to go by homicide rates because suicide should also be down in countries with gun control.

However, the other category, the category of active murderers, those with the intention to kill innocent people, will lower as a result of gun control. It works in Europe, why would it not work in the USA?

How do you know that without looking at the homicide rates? For example why don't you look at knife related deaths? When the UK banned guns, knife related deaths went through the roof. At one point it was even reported that on average 6 people died a week from knife stabs, which is ridiculous for a close ranged weapon like that. Go ahead, look it up if you want but stop looking at one little piece of the puzzle please.

Also, the definition you just gave of liberty does not exist on this planet. You say that the 50-55% of people who do not support the bill for gun control will get their liberty taken away if the bill passes. Let us assume the bill will not make it all the way through, there will be still a 45-49% of people who get their liberty taken away as well, because their vote suddenly does not count anymore. I do not have a problem with this, this is how democracy works, but you just said that liberty also takes the individuals in account, and does not listen to the majority. That is not going to happen, choices have to be made about every subject, and yes, the majority always wins in a real democracy. Liberty, how great it may sound, belongs to an impossible utopia.

And this is where I'm going to face palm really really hard. We did have liberty for at least one point in time, so it doesn't take a "utopian world" to achieve liberty. In fact back in colonial days right after the revolution the government had almost no power at all so we our liberties then. Are you saying that our soldiers are fighting and dying for an impossible dream? Also you clearly didn't read the definition, it said that liberty is a set of rights that not even the majority can take away, in a sense that's almost the same thing as freedom. However you're saying that if we have a huge vote on gun laws and they don't pass through that 40% of the population in America will lose their liberty. That's a very funny way of putting it because the 40% doesn't actually lose any rights and therefore by the definition I provided they don't lose any liberty. What? Do they lose the right to take away their neighbor's property? The last time I checked that was never even a right to being with. Just in case you still don't believe me, here's a few more definitions of the word pulled form a dictionary:

Liberty, noun
1.
freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2.
freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3.
freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

So going by those definitions, banning or restricting guns will tamper with or take away whatever liberties we have left. Obviously if we lose guns we become much more dependent on the government, and that is counterproductive to the whole idea of liberty which is something we should strive for even if it is an impossible utopian idea.

 

[Pokequaza]

Suicide, euthanasia and related acts do not kill other people except for those whose choice it is to die. Therefore, I do not see why we should look at that. If they do not want to live anymore, fine, they will not hurt other people physically by taking their own life. It is their choice. Since these are included within the homicide rates I do not see why we still bother looking at those numbers as it also includes acts as suicide and euthanasia as well. And even if they are included in the gun related deaths, they will find other ways to take their life, even after proper gun control.

You know that goes both ways. People will find a way to kill people intentionally without guns too. Also I thought that by your logic the suicide rates would go down because "guns are more efficient than other weapons." So then by that logic it's fine to go by homicide rates because suicide should also be down in countries with gun control.

However, the other category, the category of active murderers, those with the intention to kill innocent people, will lower as a result of gun control. It works in Europe, why would it not work in the USA?

How do you know that without looking at the homicide rates? For example why don't you look at knife related deaths? When the UK banned guns, knife related deaths went through the roof. At one point it was even reported that on average 6 people died a week from knife stabs, which is ridiculous for a close ranged weapon like that. Go ahead, look it up if you want but stop looking at one little piece of the puzzle please.

Also, the definition you just gave of liberty does not exist on this planet. You say that the 50-55% of people who do not support the bill for gun control will get their liberty taken away if the bill passes. Let us assume the bill will not make it all the way through, there will be still a 45-49% of people who get their liberty taken away as well, because their vote suddenly does not count anymore. I do not have a problem with this, this is how democracy works, but you just said that liberty also takes the individuals in account, and does not listen to the majority. That is not going to happen, choices have to be made about every subject, and yes, the majority always wins in a real democracy. Liberty, how great it may sound, belongs to an impossible utopia.

And this is where I'm going to face palm really really hard. We did have liberty for at least one point in time, so it doesn't take a "utopian world" to achieve liberty. In fact back in colonial days right after the revolution the government had almost no power at all so we our liberties then. Are you saying that our soldiers are fighting and dying for an impossible dream? Also you clearly didn't read the definition, it said that liberty is a set of rights that not even the majority can take away, in a sense that's almost the same thing as freedom. However you're saying that if we have a huge vote on gun laws and they don't pass through that 40% of the population in America will lose their liberty. That's a very funny way of putting it because the 40% doesn't actually lose any rights and therefore by the definition I provided they don't lose any liberty. What? Do they lose the right to take away their neighbor's property? The last time I checked that was never even a right to being with. Just in case you still don't believe me, here's a few more definitions of the word pulled form a dictionary:

Liberty, noun
1.
freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2.
freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3.
freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

So going by those definitions, banning or restricting guns will tamper with or take away whatever liberties we have left. Obviously if we lose guns we become much more dependent on the government, and that is counterproductive to the whole idea of liberty which is something we should strive for even if it is an impossible utopian idea.

Suicide has nothing to do with it. Yes guns are more efficient for killing multiple people, but a suicide is an act that only the person itself can execute, therefore it would not matter what they use as the only goal they have in mind is to take their own life. Gun control might lower the suicides commited by guns, but other ways of suicide will rise, it is expected, and also not the topic of debate.

''At one point it was even reported that on average 6 people died a week from knife stabs, which is ridiculous for a close ranged weapon like that.'' Well at least you agree that guns are more efficient for killing large numbers of people. Yes, I expect the death-rate by other weapons to rise as a result of gun control, however, as guns are more efficient, less people will find their death due to gun control as well.

They would loose the privilige to live in a country with gun control. However that is not the point, as I said before; compromises have to be made about everything. If you want to reach for liberty in a place without government, go ahead, but I doubt such a society would become anything, actually, without rules, it would become a big mess over the course of time. Modern society depends on cooperation, and cooperation requires rules and laws to work.

Since both of us probably will not agree with each other very soon, I think will set this discussion aside, and cease debating this subject.

 

[The Pikachu Mafia]

Yeah I'm getting pretty tired of this whole issue as well, neither of us is going to be able to convince each other of anything anytime soon so we'll just have to agree to disagree...

 

[debugs]

Gun control laws failed to pass, but it's really hard to get a gun now. You have to go through a complicated system. I heard someone is suing a state (Illinois I think it was) because the process of getting a gun took longer than they said it would.