Gun Control - Your stance, views, and recent developments

[Elite Stride]

Just a reminder guys and gals, the topic is GUN CONTROL, try not to veer off too far.

@Haunted Water
The lockers and the parking lot itself are school property (obvi) and they have a right to check your stuff (say, for illegal drugs or something) but only if they have significant proof (say a drug dog) to believe there is something in your bag. But they should have proper documentation to ransack your phone or decide what happens to your belongings. At least that is how it was with the school I attended. But as with any public property, if you're on it, you have to adhere to the parties who have authority over it. Now there are obvious exceptions to this, but for example, if your school has a ban on knives, and they have sufficient evidence to believe you are in the posession of a kife, then they technically have a right to check your things.

 

[Kecleon-X]

So what you are saying is that the government needs to make the decision for them? In other words, "I know what is best for you, whether you like it or not.". That is downright terrible reasoning.

Yes. But is that not the sole thing a government is responsible for? I do not know if you are aware of this, but a government makes decisions for you. How many people like to take away other people's properties? Yet the government makes theft illegal. Every single rule or law anywhere in the world has this 'I know what is best for you, whether you like it or not' concept behind it. Even traffic has rules, whether you like them or not. These rules actually make a decent society possible. There are apparantly people who cannot function properly without them. If you get rid of all laws and rules, do not tell me it will not end in a big chaos. Ergo, no, this is not downright terrible reasoning, it is what allows for a human society.

Those are laws to tell you "Hey, don't do anything immoral", not to tell you how to live your life with an iron fist. I also find it funny you mention theft, since most robberies are happening with baseball bats and knives, and the baseball bats alone outnumber the violent crimes that guns do. I also find it funny that you mention traffic laws, because a good majority of America don't obey the speed limit, another part don't obey DUI laws, a good part of America disobey texting laws and another part of America don't obey Stop Signs, to name a few of the laws that people don't obey.

The point is (and I have stated this many times, yet no one seems to listen), there is no point in making laws in an effort to limit the criminals who do not abide by them. These laws will only limit the law abiding, who also must get something to protect themselves with.

Put it this way. A criminal with a gun enters a household with intent to do unspeakable things to the man's wife, kill the man's son who tried to come at him with a baseball bat, and hold the man hostage whilst he steals the man's everything. The only weapon that the man has at his disposal is a taser (which isn't that accurate, mind you). This would, in the end, fail because of the only temporary stunning that the taser supplies with its one shot. Bang. Now the man is dead, and the criminal got away. Sad story, huh?

Now let's imagine this story differently. The man has a gun and has been a good parent and shown his son how to use it. The criminal enters the house with a gun with harmful intent. Bang. The man shoots the criminal and they live happily ever after.

Which is a better story?

What you were talking about is lack of freedom. Is freedom not what this country was founded upon?

Your "Facts" are flawed. Defacto the matter is that the statistics are taken from the most populated side of town where all of the hooligans live and, quite frankly, few people own guns. When you get out to the parts of the states and counties where everyone owns a gun and is not afraid to use it, lo and behold, there is practically no crime. To say "look at how high the homicide rate is around the country" is just ignorant of the fact that "around the country" is just a few densely populated cities where hooligans and thugs live.

A nationwide survey from 2010 confirmed that between 40 and 45% of the households in the US owned a gun. 83% of the people live in a city. Even if every single household in the countryside owned a gun, there would still be at least a 23% of households in a city that owned a gun. However it is not really important where there are more guns, their availability is more important, and since they are everywhere, and it is not a problem for anyone to obtain one, the death rate due to firearms will certainly not decrease in the US.

Yes, there exists things as black markets, however we know that once a restriction is put upon an act, it will decrease. If you know it is illegal and if you know the consequences, you would probably think twice about it before doing so.

It is very important on where there are guns. Criminals are a lot like water, they go and hurt the places where the least resistance is. In other words, they know that if they try to rob a house with a gun, they know that they will get shot. So, they go to the people's homes who don't own guns and proceed to rob them. It is simple, really.

You realize that same reasoning was used during the prohibition of alcohol, don't you? The smugglers, moonshiners and mobsters were superpowers in the US during the prohibition. Don't you think that the same thing will happen? Everyone is going to want to keep themselves and their families safe, and thus, they will turn to less direct means of obtaining unlicensed firearms. Good men who have morals will even do this if it means protecting families. If you think that this will not happen, then you are wrong.

You would also be surprised about a criminal's reasoning. These people are not mentally well. They do not "think twice" about anything. Saying that criminals think logically is simply not true.

 

[Cinesra]

And you honestly think the UN will turn a blind eye if the government condones the use of aircraft on their own people? Much less do you honestly think most commanding officers will give the go ahead on killing fellow countrymen?
There is an element of politics in it. Options in case of a rebellion:
-Fight it on even terms
-Give in
-Total War, self-destructing the country.
The former two would be most acceptable to the global community compared to the third option.
And if a majority of the global community condemns an action, do you think they'd keep their mouths shut about it? No, probably not.

I posted the Colbert video because it was related and funny(Apache jokes anyone?), but he also brought up a point. Should the government go crazy tyrannical and turn against its people, just owning guns isn't going to do jack shit to a military that has tanks, copters, rocket launchers, drones, etc.

Do you even know a communist/socialist? Because I do, and they are very extreme.

"I know a communist/socialist who is extreme, therefore every single commie is bad."

 

[Breakfast Cereal]

I used to be a mega republican, but I've had a massive change of views.

I still hold to my beliefs that a ban on guns will not stop criminals or the insane from getting them. However, I do not like guns. Guns were made for killing, are used for killing, and will always be used for killing, at least until the world turns completely toward peace (which I hope I get to see in my lifetime). With this being said, it is fun to shoot guns, but I will never purchase one myself because I absolutely hate and I absolutely hate war. The last thing I want to do is advocate them.

Before any conservatives or liberals even BEGIN to discuss guns, there are things that actually matter in this damn country (and, of course, the rest of the world).

First, we need to fix the education system. It's horribly botched. Education is power and I strongly believe that if there are more educated people in the world, there will be more happiness and more peace. The teachers in the US are not dedicated or good enough and the curriculum is too soft.

Second, the US needs to focus more on mental health. You think the mentally ill like Adam Lanza are going to follow a law on guns? The mental healthcare system is not good enough. This is why places are shot up. People are crazy. People like Chris Dorner snap. It needs to be better, much, much better.

Third, the police system sucks. I don't have time to go into detail on this, as it's a vast subject, but things need to change, at least a little bit.

Also, it'd help if the driving test was harder. More deaths happen by car crash than by gun in the US (except in war). Google's self-driving car will help with this in the coming years, though.

That's what I think. Everyone needs to shut up about guns because there are bigger issues.

 

[Elite Stride]

I'd rather you not come into a gun control topic and tell everyone to "shut up about guns". If you have "bigger issues" that you would like to discuss, I would encourage you to create a new topic.

Although I disagree, you do bring up the mental healthcare case, which is good. Honestly, I don't see how mental healthcare is the problem here. Your argument seems to surround the stance that gun laws don't prevent crazies from shooting, but neither will "better" mental healthcare. Especially since most of the people who execute shootings show no sign of mental illness before the crime is committed. And for those who do, their family/friends/peers are sure to notice it and act accordingly. And lets try not to say that the related healthcare is hard to get cause that's just not reasonable.

 

[Breakfast Cereal]

I'd rather you not come into a gun control topic and tell everyone to "shut up about guns". If you have "bigger issues" that you would like to discuss, I would encourage you to create a new topic.

I agree, that did sound a bit rude. That's not the way I meant it. I sense a little hostility in your post; I'm simply here to have a friendly discussion. Take it a little less seriously- we're on a Pokemon forum.

Although I disagree, you do bring up the mental healthcare case, which is good. Honestly, I don't see how mental healthcare is the problem here. Your argument seems to surround the stance that gun laws don't prevent crazies from shooting, but neither will "better" mental healthcare. Especially since most of the people who execute shootings show no sign of mental illness before the crime is committed.

A lot of the time, people just snap like that because of the condition they are in. They are often socially awkward, angry, or they are neglected.

"What if the kids at Columbine were here today, what would you say to them?"
"I wouldn't say anything. I'd listen to them, which no one else did." -Marilyn Manson

Mental healthcare will not solve all of the problems, I agree. But I assure you that the number of shootings would go down substantially with better mental healthcare- it's much more of a problem than guns, that's for sure. That's my main point here. This reminds me of a few firsthand accounts of how bad said healthcare can be that I came across- I'll see if I can find it again for you. I'll post it here if I can.

And for those who do, their family/friends/peers are sure to notice it and act accordingly.

Not always. In the case of Adam Lanza, (who I'm kind of using as "your friendly neighborhood psycho" in these scenarios) something didn't seem right with the way his relationship with his mother sounded.

"Adam would move only 'when his mother told him to,' Skuba said.
'I would say, "Adam, come on." He wouldn't move.'
'And his mother would have to say, "Adam, come on, he's ready." It was like I was invisible.'"

Something is absolutely wrong there.

Also, there is a lot of speculation that he snapped because of his mother's plans to get him committed. They don't always notice it soon enough.

Again, my main point is not that it would solve all problems. Just that it would definitely help.

 

[Ysmir]

I'm from Arizona we are all gun wielding Republicans Mwuahahahaha!

In all seriousness,
I think there needs to be a better system of allowing people to buy guns. Background checks, permits, all that but also to periodically "renew" them. I think high magazine weapons should be at least limited maybe banned, but not handguns. This also boils to better border protection as cartels are smuggling weapons to and from Mexico. I'm from Arizona....I've seen it all my life. My father was involved in big time Drug trafficking in the 1990's but got out. (Thank god, he renounced that life completely.) The borders need to be better protected. (This on it's own is a topic)
I do also think Mental Health is something to be looked at....there are so many not ok people and everyone is all ignorant as far as thinking they can live in normal society. I'm not saying to throw anyone who has mental issues in the loony bin but stop this attitude that everyone can coexist together. Fact is, people are crazy even if you aren't deemed crazy.....one thing can set off a person....and boom people are dead.

I'm from Tucson I was down the street from Safeway that day Gabby Giffords was shot....you heard it....
The signs were everywhere that Jared wasn't OK but people ignored it....continued to believe...he'll get over it but he didn't. I see commercials for gun control in Arizona all the time and Gabby is in them....she isn't the same and never will be....we say it's OK because it hasn't happened to us....but what about when it does?

Furthermore, I also believe we need to extensively look into mental health for those in the military. That is an area that needs to be entirely revamped. I've seen soldiers who came back from Afghanistan and they are wrecks living in loved ones houses who are up to their necks in debt and stress. I knew a guy he was a bum he came back from the Vietnam War.....the man has been living on the streets of Arizona since the 1980's. The guy has missing fingers and doesn't walk right....is that how we take care of those who sacrificed limb and mind?

 

[Haunted Water]

Mental health and gun laws only correlate as in the case of Adam Lanza, a schizophrenic who seized an opportunity, albeit a bad one.
In the 70s and 80s, America had the most serial killers than any other time in its history. A survey in 75 showed that out of all homicides that happened in the past year, 51% were carried out with a handgun, while 18% were done with knives. Shotguns and Rifles (Both assault and battle) had 8% each. Knives are more dangerous than high-powered arms then, right? Actually, no.
Serial killers are mentally ill and have a certain modus operandi with them. This goes down even to the murder weapon. Result: Skewed stats.

The clinically insane that are sociopaths/psychopaths are self-centered and have the view that they are untouchable and everybody is inferior, or lesser to some extent. They will stop at nothing to mae their goal. Spree killers, mass murderers, and serial killers all have an agenda they believe that they need to fill.
Nowadays, a gun will do much more damage in shorter timespan.
I'm going to end with this, since my mind is starting to wander. Guns don't kill people; People, kill people. Physical proven evidence shows that a gun, when left alone, won't go out and brutally slaughter 38 people. A psychotic, when given a gun, will.

 

[Vulpix-core]

I'm still sticking by the phrase I was raised by.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
And I believe this.
Arm the people who want to be armed so they can defend themselves and the people around them. If there had been at least one person at any of these shootings, like a teacher, one that knew how to use his firearm, I'm sure some of those instances wouldn't have escalated like they did.
And think about this. People have a way of getting ahold of contraband no matter what restrictions are put on said items.
So no matter what we ban or restrict, it will find its way into the hands of people who will use it wrongly. If we arm the people that we can trust then we will have a better chance.

 

[r3skyline]

I'm from Arizona we are all gun wielding Republicans Mwuahahahaha!

From goodyear

The borders need to be better protected. (This on it's own is a topic)

More protected than you know of. Especially in AZ

Furthermore, I also believe we need to extensively look into mental health for those in the military. That is an area that needs to be entirely revamped. I've seen soldiers who came back from Afghanistan and they are wrecks living in loved ones houses who are up to their necks in debt and stress. I knew a guy he was a bum he came back from the Vietnam War.....the man has been living on the streets of Arizona since the 1980's. The guy has missing fingers and doesn't walk right....is that how we take care of those who sacrificed limb and mind?

Back in the day, the VA was nowhere near as "good" as it is today. Today, we have to go to a board and request and fight and prove our injuries. If the injuries were NOT as a result of military, or military related, we get NO money. Sucks, but thats how it works. It does need a major improvement, but that wont be for a long time sadly.

If you want to know more about how the AZ borders are protected, feel free to PM and i can share some cool info.

 

[Ysmir]

I've no doubt you've got some good info but your information and me growing up there, living there, have always told me one thing: Needs to be better. I'm interested in the info, let's see if you can convince me otherwise.....cause experience trumps info for me but we will see.

 

[The Pikachu Mafia]

I'm against Gun Control Laws but first let me get this straight, I only live about an hour or so away from where the school shooting took place in Dec.

The whole concept of Gun Control is flawed, crazy people are going to be getting their hands on guns weather you ban them or not. On top of that it hurts the economy a bit (less stuff to sell can equate to less jobs) and if you take our guns away, how are we supposed to defend ourselves when some crazy guy comes banging on our door with a mac 10? (waiting 20 minutes for police response wont cut it in a life or death situation).

Taking guns away from us, the "good guys" isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

 

[r3skyline]

I've no doubt you've got some good info but your information and me growing up there, living there, have always told me one thing: Needs to be better. I'm interested in the info, let's see if you can convince me otherwise.....cause experience trumps info for me but we will see.

Did you know we use armed ermp for border patrol?

 

[omahanime]

5 things that are harder to buy than guns.

Required a retrievable record of all purchases, identifying the name and address of each party, to be kept for two years
Required verification of proof of identity of all purchasers
Required protection and disclosure methods in the collection of personal information
Required reports to the Attorney General of any suspicious payments or disappearances of the regulated products
Required training of employees with regard to the requirements of the CMEA. Retailers must self-certify as to training and compliance.
The non-liquid dose form of regulated products may only be sold in unit dose blister packs
Regulated products must be stored behind the counter or in a locked cabinet in such a way as to restrict public access
Sales limits (per customer):
Daily sales limit—must not exceed 3.6 grams of pseudoephedrine base without regard to the number of transactions
30-day (not monthly) sales limit—must not exceed 7.5 grams of pseudoephedrine base if sold by mail order or "mobile retail vendor"
30-day purchase limit—must not exceed 9 grams of pseudoephedrine base. (A misdemeanor possession offense under 21 U.S.C. § 844a for the person who buys it.)

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 withholds revenue from states that allow the purchase of alcohol by anyone under the age of 21. Prior to the effective date of that Act, the drinking age varied from state to state. Some states do not allow those under the legal drinking age to be present in liquor stores or in bars (usually, the difference between a bar and a restaurant is that food is served only in the latter).

requires a credit check

Driver's License
Providing a driver's license confirms your identity and allows for proper record keeping at the shelter you are adopting from. It is also a minor test of honesty. Those willing to identify themselves and go on record as the adoptive owner tend to be more responsible with their pets.

Proof of Current Residence
Some applications require you to bring a current utility bill or other documentation as proof of residency. This gives the shelter security in knowing the potential adoptive owner has a home and safe place for the animal to reside.

Homeowners may be required to bring a current mortgage statement or other documentation as proof of ownership.

If the home is rented or leased, it is likely you will be asked to bring in the landlord's contact information and a copy of your lease agreement or a letter from your landlord stating that having an animal on the premises is acceptable. - SPCA

Each state has different standards and paperwork requirements for getting a hunting license. These includes the areas, time periods, harvesting techniques, distinctions between species, and a hunting safety course.
Licenses to hunt typically go on sale once a year.[13]
49 of the 50 states require a prospective big game hunter take a several-hour course about safety, often termed sportsman education.[28][29]

 

[safariblade]

I'm against Gun Control Laws but first let me get this straight, I only live about an hour or so away from where the school shooting took place in Dec.

The whole concept of Gun Control is flawed, crazy people are going to be getting their hands on guns weather you ban them or not. On top of that it hurts the economy a bit (less stuff to sell can equate to less jobs) and if you take our guns away, how are we supposed to defend ourselves when some crazy guy comes banging on our door with a mac 10? (waiting 20 minutes for police response wont cut it in a life or death situation).

Taking guns away from us, the "good guys" isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

You say this as if "Gun Control Laws" always = taking guns away. It's possible to support gun control without supporting laws that take guns away. Why not support background checks? That give guns to more "good guys" and less "crazy guys" + it has the potential to create jobs depending on how serious the government looks at the background check process.

 

[The Pikachu Mafia]

Background checks wont do too much in the end, there's still smuggling and the black market. I'd be willing to bet that most of the "crazy guys" don't even bother with getting a gun legally anyways. Also imho the government isn't interested in taking guns away from only insane people, they want total gun restriction where no one except the police and military have them (like Japan) which wont work for obvious reasons.

 

[Pokequaza]

Background checks wont do too much in the end, there's still smuggling and the black market. I'd be willing to bet that most of the "crazy guys" don't even bother with getting a gun legally anyways. Also imho the government isn't interested in taking guns away from only insane people, they want total gun restriction where no one except the police and military have them (like Japan) which wont work for obvious reasons.

In your opinion? How would that work?

I find it amusing that even though most people admit there is a problem with guns in the US, they will not even bother trying to do something. Apparantly we already know the outcome of every single proposed idea to fix the problem.

Ah well, theft is not banned without any reason either. But hey, theft does not steal, people do. Then why is theft not legalised?

 

[omahanime]

New study by Boston Children's Hospital finds that tougher laws on guns can have an effect on homicide and suicide rates


(Photo: Seth Perlman, AP)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Background checks, permit requirements have decreasing homicide rates
States with most laws have lower mortality rates, study finds
States with more gun laws have fewer gun-related deaths, according to a new study released Wednesday by Boston Children's Hospital.

The leader investigator behind the research hopes the findings will drive legislators to pass gun reform across the country and increase federal funding to research on gun laws and violence. However, at least one critic argues that the study fails to take into account several important factors such as the types of laws, enforcement of laws, and gun ownership rates in states.

"Our research gives clear evidence that laws have a role in preventing firearms deaths," said Eric Fleegler, the study's lead investigator and a pediatric emergency doctor at Boston Children's Hospital. "Legislators should take that into consideration."

Fleegler and researchers from Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health studied information from all 50 states between 2007 to 2010, analyzing all firearm-related deaths reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and data on firearm laws compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found. The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower.

Specifically, Fleeger pointed to states with many gun laws like Massachusetts, which had 3.4 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, and New Jersey, which had 4.9 gun-deaths per 100,000 people. Conversely, he focused on states with less laws like Louisiana, which had 18 deaths per 100,000 individuals and Alaska, which had 17.5 deaths per 100,000 individuals.

The study also found that laws requiring universal background checks and permits to purchase firearms were most clearly associated with decreasing rates of gun-related homicides and suicides.

Despite the findings, researchers did not establish a cause and effect relationship between guns and deaths. Rather, they could only establish an association.

That failure illustrates the limits of the study, said Garen Wintemute, an emergency physician and director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis.

"Policy makers can really draw no conclusion from this study," Wintemute said, explaining that the study doesn't provide critical answers to which laws work and why.

The larger problem is that the United States effectively stopped doing research on gun laws and violence 15 years ago and now has no evidence that shows causes and effect, he said.

Wintemute added, however, that he believes gun policies are important and can drive rates of violence down. In the future, researchers must look at how several factors including culture, gun ownership, and gun trafficking between states, he said.

Fleegler and his colleagues became interested in the relationship between gun laws and deaths last summer after the Trayvon Martin case sparked conversations about self-defense laws and the use of guns.

Trayvon, 17, was shot dead in a gated Florida community by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer. Zimmerman, who has plead not guilty to a second-degree murder charge, is claiming self-defense.

"There is very minimal research going on and very minimal funding for the research that is going gone," Fleegler said. "We need to understand these relationships so that we can take action."

 

[Haunted Water]

Background checks wont do too much in the end, there's still smuggling and the black market. I'd be willing to bet that most of the "crazy guys" don't even bother with getting a gun legally anyways. Also imho the government isn't interested in taking guns away from only insane people, they want total gun restriction where no one except the police and military have them (like Japan) which wont work for obvious reasons.

In your opinion? How would that work?

I find it amusing that even though most people admit there is a problem with guns in the US, they will not even bother trying to do something. Apparantly we already know the outcome of every single proposed idea to fix the problem.

Ah well, theft is not banned without any reason either. But hey, theft does not steal, people do. Then why is theft not legalised?

lolwut?
I think you're taking the whole 'people kill people' logic too seriously. Are you saying gun ownership is a crime? Because nearly half of America are criminals in that logic, incuding me. If you honestly think that guns kill people by simply being around, you may want to remember that anyone who is "forced" to abuse guns by using them as a murder weapon because they're lying around; wouldn't have a gun due to background checks because they are most likely shizophrenic.
Also, I find it funny that people that think guns aren't tools of death, need to get their head checked. It is accepted that their are a few goods (more like 'bads' amirite?) that are supposed to harm, and have a tendency to cause death.
Point I'm trying to get across is, eventhough guns are meant to kill, if they are banned solely on that, then they'll have to ban cigarettes and other items.
Also, imo, there's to much wrong with the Trayvon Martin case to be used as a statistic in an argument about gun control.

 

[Pokequaza]

In your opinion? How would that work?

I find it amusing that even though most people admit there is a problem with guns in the US, they will not even bother trying to do something. Apparantly we already know the outcome of every single proposed idea to fix the problem.

Ah well, theft is not banned without any reason either. But hey, theft does not steal, people do. Then why is theft not legalised?

lolwut?
I think you're taking the whole 'people kill people' logic too seriously. Are you saying gun ownership is a crime? Because nearly half of America are criminals in that logic, incuding me. If you honestly think that guns kill people by simply being around, you may want to remember that anyone who is "forced" to abuse guns by using them as a murder weapon because they're lying around; wouldn't have a gun due to background checks because they are most likely shizophrenic.
Also, I find it funny that people that think guns aren't tools of death, need to get their head checked. It is accepted that their are a few goods (more like 'bads' amirite?) that are supposed to harm, and have a tendency to cause death.
Point I'm trying to get across is, eventhough guns are meant to kill, if they are banned solely on that, then they'll have to ban cigarettes and other items.
Also, imo, there's to much wrong with the Trayvon Martin case to be used as a statistic in an argument about gun control.

It was not to be taken serious either, however it does demonstrate the validity of the argument.

And no, as far as I am aware, gun ownership is still legal in the US, and therefore not a crime.

The thing with cigarettes, and various other tabacco related items, is that they are not solely made to ''kill'', they are not healthy indeed, and it will often manifest itself in the form of a premature death. It is a side effect, though, and de not forget that they usually do more harm to the user than to other people, in contrast to guns.