Gun Control - Your stance, views, and recent developments

[Afro-G]

You can't exactly kill 20+ people with a knife or a bat...

Funny you should mention that, because a man stabbed 22 schoolchildren in China the exact same day as the Sandy Hook shooting.

I think I heard about that somewhere as well. I might be misinformed or something but isn't it also true that little to none of those children were actually killed? I mean, there's no excuse for acts of violence like this but there's still a difference between injury and death. Obviously it's possible to kill 20+ people with a knife if given enough time and done right but not nearly as efficiently and effectively as a gun I'd imagine.

 

[sillykyle]

Don't know if Kecleon-X is for or against the ban.
Also note: insanely fast guns are illegal to be sold completely. Full autos and burst are illegal. Semi-autos aren't. A gun isn't insanely fast because of how long it takes to empty a magazine. The fire rate determines that. Using a six capacity magazine is a horrible analogy, because only revolvers and shotguns hold that much/less. And they are semi-auto.

Shows how much I know about guns, lol. My other points still stand though.

 

[Infinity]

I'm pretty sure if you have a license you can buy full-auto firearms. In Arkansas, at least.

 

[Porygon-X]

Funny you should mention that, because a man stabbed 22 schoolchildren in China the exact same day as the Sandy Hook shooting.

I think I heard about that somewhere as well. I might be misinformed or something but isn't it also true that little to none of those children were actually killed? I mean, there's no excuse for acts of violence like this but there's still a difference between injury and death. Obviously it's possible to kill 20+ people with a knife if given enough time and done right but not nearly as efficiently and effectively as a gun I'd imagine.

I'm not sure how many of them were killed or just injured. But I guess the point is people will kill people regardless of any laws outlawing specific weapons, and mass murders can and will occur even if you ban guns.

 

[sillykyle]

Yes, but most likely less will happen.

 

[Porygon-X]

Yes, but most likely less will happen.

My opinion is that it is easier to kill a group of people if the people are unarmed. If most civilians carried a gun, I believe it would detour hypothetical perpetrators even greater than just making it hard to own a gun in the first place.

The first line of defense in a shooting are the victims themselves.

 

[The Yoshi]

Sandy Hook

Sorry for OCD but it's *Hooke

Anyway, I think there should just be more restrictions on guns, like background checks, making them harder to purchase, etc. I just can't think of anything that would prevent people from trying to get guns because of reverse psychology and junk (and by this I'm not saying we should dare people to shoot people so they won't).

 

[Haunted Water]

I'm pretty sure if you have a license you can buy full-auto firearms. In Arkansas, at least.

Well, I'm headed to Arkansas.

 

[sillykyle]

Yes, but most likely less will happen.

My opinion is that it is easier to kill a group of people if the people are unarmed. If most civilians carried a gun, I believe it would detour hypothetical perpetrators even greater than just making it hard to own a gun in the first place.

The first line of defense in a shooting are the victims themselves.

But most people don't just carry around guns everywhere. Are you suggesting they should? Personally I think that's a horrible idea, because there would be a lot of incidents with little kids getting their hands on guns and shooting themselves or others by accident.

 

[Nengeni]

Yes. If everyone had a concealed weapon, I believe that shootings would go down by a large amount.

You're less likely to start shooting if 10 of the 15 people nearby you have concealed weapons.

 

[Porygon-X]

My opinion is that it is easier to kill a group of people if the people are unarmed. If most civilians carried a gun, I believe it would detour hypothetical perpetrators even greater than just making it hard to own a gun in the first place.

The first line of defense in a shooting are the victims themselves.

But most people don't just carry around guns everywhere. Are you suggesting they should? Personally I think that's a horrible idea, because there would be a lot of incidents with little kids getting their hands on guns and shooting themselves or others by accident.

Yes, I do think that most civilians should carry guns. Little kids getting their hands on a gun is not a problem if the kids are well educated and their parents are responsible. Most parents shelter their kids from guns, so they are more of a mystery.

 

[Guts]

Little kids getting their hands on a gun is not a problem if the kids are well educated and their parents are responsible. Most parents shelter their kids from guns, so they are more of a mystery.

Well golly gosh all we have to do is make sure every child in America is well-educated and assume their parents are responsible as well! That gun problem will be as good as gone in no time.

 

[Porygon-X]

Little kids getting their hands on a gun is not a problem if the kids are well educated and their parents are responsible. Most parents shelter their kids from guns, so they are more of a mystery.

Well golly gosh all we have to do is make sure every child in America is well-educated and assume their parents are responsible as well! That gun problem will be as good as gone in no time.

Yep. Start putting gun safety in schools.

 

[Nengeni]

An armed person in every school will help considerably.

That or just give a gun to every teacher and educate them.

The president DOES have armed guards... Why don't we put measures in place to have armed guardians of American kids?

--
I'm Canadian, which is why I might be a little biased (Not actually having first hand experience)

 

[safariblade]

Now, obviously that amendment isn't going anywhere any time soon, but you do have to consider how old it is. Think about it, even guns that are considered no good or whatever today are waaaaaaaay more advanced than anything they had in the 18 century. Back then a "mass shooting" would have been more like: Shooter fires a shot or two, then has to reload. Maybe they get off a 3rd or 4th shot if they're lucky, then someone takes them down and it's over.

Come at me haters.

You make a point that I see as well. When the amendment was made, it was to allow people rights to their black powder muzzle loaders.

But it was made so that the people could protect themselves in case the nation broke down and the people need to revolt against a corrupt government. But honestly, that way of thinking is outdated now.

 

[Equinox]

Now, obviously that amendment isn't going anywhere any time soon, but you do have to consider how old it is. Think about it, even guns that are considered no good or whatever today are waaaaaaaay more advanced than anything they had in the 18 century. Back then a "mass shooting" would have been more like: Shooter fires a shot or two, then has to reload. Maybe they get off a 3rd or 4th shot if they're lucky, then someone takes them down and it's over.

Come at me haters.

So is the quartering of troops, but it's still an amendment, also, gun control laws probably didn't even exist back then.

 

[Elite Stride]

An armed person in every school will help considerably.

That or just give a gun to every teacher and educate them.

The president DOES have armed guards... Why don't we put measures in place to have armed guardians of American kids?

--
I'm Canadian, which is why I might be a little biased (Not actually having first hand experience)

Yes. If everyone had a concealed weapon, I believe that shootings would go down by a large amount.

You're less likely to start shooting if 10 of the 15 people nearby you have concealed weapons.

PREACH. This is the argument I was also defending in the Connecticuit shooting thread. Just give every teacher a handgun, or at least have security with firearms (although I think a lot of public schools do, but it certainly isn't happening everywhere). Sandy Hooke Elementary clearly didn't. I actually wouldn't say that shootings themselves would go down, but the magnitude of deaths related to school shootings could go way down. But maybe, if gun control laws were more strict, these kinds of precautions wouldn't be necessary.

Some people say fighting guns with guns isn't going to get us anywhere, but it honestly does. As long as the criminals in this world carry guns, everyone else will need to as well. How else do you oppose someone who is pointing a gun at you, or in the case of the shootings, a child? This is why law enforcement carry firearms, how else will they oppose the criminals who also carry dangerous weaponry? Get on their knees and say, "oh gosh PLEASE don't mug that old woman!"?

Inb4 haters.

 

[Kecleon-X]

Alright. Here is how it goes.

Drugs: Illegal.
DUI: Illegal.
Killing People: Illegal.
Theft: Illegal.

I hear that people still do everything on this list. Does that mean we should just go ahead and make them legal since people do them anyway? No, I am saying that laws are only going to limit the law abiding. The point is, criminals aren't going to obey the law, so stop making laws that will try to limit those who disregard them.

Defacto the matter is that laws will only limit the law abiding, not the criminals. Criminals will always be just that: Criminals.

I hear that rocks are also a very nice weapon for killing people, along with knifes, plastic bags, cars, crossbows, bats, and of the sort. You can't exactly kill 20+ people with a knife or a bat... What my brother said. No matter what you do, you will only be limiting the law abiding who are trying to get protection against the criminals. Just because people could still potentially get their hands on illegal guns doesn't mean we shouldn't make it harder. If they're much harder to obtain, less people who want to do bad will be able to get them. You would make it harder for the law abiding to gain weapons to protect himself. One can easily gain weapons by other, less legal, means. I mean, seriously. If you can buy drugs on certain street corners, don't you think that guns will be there as well? A certain amount of this is already in play, but making a law that bans guns would make these criminals like smugglers during the prohibition of alcohol! The point is, if you give an evil man a gun, he will use it for evil, whereas if you give a gun to a good man, he will use it for good. And how do you know if a man is "good" or "evil"? There's no clear cut line, and it's impossible to tell in many cases. These mass shooters are generally people with no criminal records... You would be surprised. Going to a psych evaluation wouldn't be so hard, and it would give people jobs in that field, as many people would want to get guns. It is always the nut behind the wheel.

Don't ban guns. You might as well be signing a bill that could kill thousands. Personally I think that if people really want to have guns that badly, they should be allowed to have them, just not insanely fast ones that can kill tons of people in just a few seconds. If you have a gun that fires just 6 shots or whatever before you have to reload, that's plenty to stop one person who's attacking you. Answered by Haunted Water.

EDIT: Whoa. My brother is a ninja.

Replies in bold...

Replies underlined.

 

[Xous]

When it comes to gun control, I'm so (unfortunately) apathetic. In my opinion, almost nothing is going to change no matter what is done. Based on what I've seen and experienced concerning the "gun culture" of this nation, even if the government did enact strict gun control laws, I can't help but feel the more adamant factions of gun enthusiasts would so strongly oppose it that there's a strong chance it would cause more harm than good. On the other hand, doing nothing could be equally as bad. Most of my apathy comes from the fact you can absolutely never eradicate 100% of a problem such as this - there will always be exceptions, people who will go out and do terrible things no matter what. Again, there's the opposite side of that where even stopping one person from killing others is worth it, but... I just don't feel like there is truly anything realistic that can be done to have a significant impact on lessening the effects guns (in the hands of those who wish to use them improperly) have on the world we live in.

To try to push past the apathy and answer the three questions in the first post:

• What is your stance on gun control? For / against - Why? I don't care either way. I don't use guns and never plan to, and I don't care if they're here to stay or taken away forever.
• With the recent school shootings, has your views on guns changed? No. Although this increase (?) in shootings is concerning, I can't help but feel people who wish to do harm with anything will do it no matter what. I'm not here to say "if they didn't have guns they wouldn't have killed as many people!" because I can't see alternate realities and can't say that for a fact. No one truly can.
• Have you read any articles about it recently that were interesting or a poor argument for/against gun control? No, but listening to various conversations about it (talk radio, television, people around me) I've heard many ignorant opinions, as well as wise opinions.

 

[Pokequaza]

I do not live in the US, so I do not really care.

However I do want to point out that in Europe it is generally illegal to own a gun, there are some exceptions, but the vast majority does not own a gun. Gun shootings happen now and then, but nowhere near the amount of killings that happen in the US.

10.2 deaths for every 100,000 people in the US, which is more than 32,000 deaths to gun violence every year.

In Europe the average is about 1.5 deaths per 100,000 people. More than 6 times lower as in the US.

Do the math yourself. It is a fact that the legalisation of guns allows for more deaths. For your own safety, I would suggest banning guns. Of course people are still going to kill by using guns, if you really want a gun, you can always get one. However the death rate would not be even near the number it is today. Just look at the numbers, you must be blind to conclude that the death rate due to firearms in the US is not to blame on the legalisation of guns.

'Guns do not kill, people do.', you are right on that, but allowing one to have a gun is not trying to prevent it from happening either. There is no reason for you to own a gun, not even with a licence, it is the twenty-first century, we do not live in Germany during the second World War. Growing up in an environment where it is 'normal' to own a gun does not help children either. Besides, theft for example is illegal, if it were made legal the numbers of theft incidents would rise as well.

Morbid people exist everywhere, but this is not an excuse to legalise guns. It does not affect me, but if people really want to live in a world of weapons and homicides, who am I to tell them to do otherwise.