Gun laws.

[Saevus]

Sorry. The thing though is that it's true. Check murder statistics in the world. Check laws in the world. America isn't keeping up with the rest of the world, and while gun laws is one of the more urgent things to fix, next to education, it is by far not the only one.

What makes it true?

I've checked the statistics. I've written multiple papers on gun control. I'm aware of the laws.

Just south of the U.S., there's Mexico. Mexico has very strict gun laws, but they have a far higher murder rate. Why? Because of gangs - because of the drug cartel.

Russia is hugely violent too, but they have gun laws far more draconian than the U.S.

Some of the world's most popular vacation areas, namely the Caribbean, all have murder rates far above America's, but people go there to relax, for God's sake.

Why do people go somewhere they are more likely to be murdered for a vacation? Because of their perceptions. Perception is a very powerful thing. Gun violence seems like an epidemic, a threat to society, until you see that the majority of it occurs in gang warfare. Can you stop gangs from fighting by taking away their guns? No. You have to stop people from joining gangs; you have to give them a good shot at a good life. But instead, irrational people waste time lobbying for standards on gun control instead of standards on things like education.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Do i need to list off important things that america invented? No i cound't because the list is terribly long but heres a few tidbits. Your cotten materials in your house would be more costly if there was no cotten gin, You would have no refrigerator, Your grain foods would cost more if there was no reaper. Sowing machines, Telegraph( It was being devolped else where but a American inventor created it first), Anesthia was used in america first so without it you would be gagged during your operations and you would feel a whole lot more pain..Toilet paper, Burgular alarm, telophone, skyscrapers, assembly line(Which makes cars insanely cheaper and many other items), The airplane, Band-aids,Defibulators, The microwave it just keeps coming and heres a source to back it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_inventions

What the devil has that got to do with anything?

You called out america as a terrible country and i'm pointing out that infact you probably would not be on a computer at this time if it were not for Americas inventions.

 

[Saevus]

Saevus, that assault weapons are only used in less than 2% of crimes is beside the point. It was most likely an example.

Why is that beside the point? Much gun control is directed towards controlling those 'dangerous assault weapons'. Clinton's AWB, the FOPA...

Stop dodging points and argue them, if you're so certain of your convictions.

 

[SeaCalMaster]

Two points:

1. Look at the drug problems in America, and look at the disparity of marijuana users in the US and Holland, and then tell me that a criminal would have a hard time getting hold of guns if they were made illegal.

2. With the might of the US military, it is absolutely imperative that Americans have the right to own guns. If our "fearless leader" decided to take the country hostage and install himself as dictator, do you really think the UN or NATO or anyone else could do anything about it if we didn't have the ability to defend ourselves?

 

[Mathurin]

Hi, I was checking a few of yahtzees vids and saw this in the side bar, just had to sign up.

You miss the point. The point isn't that crimes are commited with guns that were procured illegally. It's the ease at getting those guns illegally.

If every household has a gun, a criminal can get a gun with a moments notice. If the only persons with guns in town is that hunter living in the suburbs and the cops illegal firearms won't exist in such numbers. This seems very hard for many Americans to understand, it seems a possibility many don't even consider. Gun laws might not do anything to stop crime in America because everyone (including criminals) already have enough guns.

This would be a fine point if we didnt already have upwards of 300 million firearms in the hands of 60-80 million gun owners.
At this point there are only 2 options

Confiscation, which wont work on many levels, not only does it violate the 2nd, but the 4th amendment as well

Attrition, or banning new guns and waiting for the old ones to break, but this wont work because guns have an extremely long life, I have a rifle dated 1947 (No, it is not an AK) and it still works wonderfully.

So, we either violate the right to privacy and property of the nation, and possibly spark a civil war, or we do something which wont do any good for 100 years

If those gun laws had been enforced for 50-100 years then there wouldn't be that many guns, not even among criminals. Sure, they're prepared to break the law to get illegal guns, but if there aren't any illegal guns then it doesn't matter how much they're willing to break gun laws.

Not true, on several levels.
For starters, there are no laws against owning or buying firearms, no matter how strictly current and past laws were enforced out situation today would be similar.

second, we have very long land borders, one of them with a less developed nation, we cannot stop the flow of people or drugs into the US, what makes you think we can stop the guns?
And yes, they already flow in, illegal full autos are the main thing that comes in.

And while guns are just tools, they're tools that make it very easy to kill people, and usually change how people react to different situations.

To a certain extent, you are correct, however this does nothing to blame to tool, in a proper world the user is held accountable for their actions.
As to changing how people react, possible, however do not assume it turns them into bloodthirsty killers. When Concealed carry laws were first initiated the licensed were watched very closely by certain police departments. who eventually stopped.
Studies of concealed carry licensees show that they are extremely law abiding, most dont even get parking tickets.

Do you think this: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=5538780
Would have happened if it weren't for guns? And don't give me any shit about him being right in shooting those people.

Chances are he would not have approached them if he had not been armed.
If he had approached them unarmed then he probably would have been killed, or at least badly beaten.

Question: Is it bad to confront criminals in the act of a crime?

Chances are you have been snowed by the media blitz surrounding this case, the fellow did not kill them in cold blood for theft as some may wish you to believe, he confronted criminals in the act, and one behaved in a way that would make a reasonable person fear for their life (charged him) So he fired.

So, this makes your statement correct, individuals will act differently if they have firearms, they are more likely to assert their rights as individuals because they have an equalizer.

And that goes for many situations like it as well. The reason that happened isn't because of restrictive gun laws. It's not because of an illegal firearm. It's because a complete moron is legally given a weapon, and isn't charged with shooting people. That's a stupid law. Gun laws aren't, if such existed that psycho wouldn't have a gun. (With gun laws I mean sane such. France, Sweden, the UK and Norway are good examples.)

The grand jury felt he had committed no crime, who are you to dispute this?
What measure do you use to call the fellow a moron
What other rights should we take from people you feel are morons

Yes, in europe you must cower appropriately before the criminals, a far better situation some would think
I would disagree

Do you think the school massacres would have happened if harsher gun laws were in place?

Yes, with explosives.

If you really study columbine, you find that what happened was plan B
Plan A was to detonate big bombs, their homemade timers failed, but they could have been detonated by hand just as easily

The avaviability of guns, both legal and illegal is because of those laws and because of how they are enforced. Both is lacking in America, and it really shows. Check the list below and think for a second if that might have something to with avaviability of firearms. (I'll admit that I think there would be just as many people that wanted to go on an insane rampage like that and kill all their school mates and teachers in America even if they didn't have guns. But if they couldn't do it, the issue wouldn't be as big.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings

Ask me this, why didnt my father commit a school shooting?
He took a gun to school once, back in the 50s or so.
It was a christmas present, after showing it off to his friends he put it in his locker and went about his day.

Before 1968 a person could purchase a rifle through the mail, no age limits or ID required.
Yet even as access to firearms has decreased, school shootings have increased....Why?

Could it be that our public school systems are a living hell, at least for some, that eventually kids cannot take much more and decide to get revenge for all the taunts and beatings they received.
Could it be that the cause of school shootings has absolutely nothing to do with the implement, and everything to do with the school.


Regardless, school shootings and other mass shootings are the exception, not the rule, and their use in a gun control argument is a significant event fallacy.

 

[Saevus]

2. With the might of the US military, it is absolutely imperative that Americans have the right to own guns. If our "fearless leader" decided to take the country hostage and install himself as dictator, do you really think the UN or NATO or anyone else could do anything about it if we didn't have the ability to defend ourselves?

The greatest responsibility of any citizen in a democratic nation is that they must always mistrust their government. And with the disintegration of checks and balances, that point is frighteningly valid.

 

[Silver]

This is the last I'm going to say on the matter today. I'm afraid I'm getting too riled up.

Sorry. The thing though is that it's true. Check murder statistics in the world. Check laws in the world. America isn't keeping up with the rest of the world, and while gun laws is one of the more urgent things to fix, next to education, it is by far not the only one.

What makes it true?

I've checked the statistics. I've written multiple papers on gun control. I'm aware of the laws.

Sorry, that part was directed at this: " Edit: Hey, Silvertonuge, no need to bash America and call it an underdeveloped cesspool of murderers."

Not that you're going to like that better.

Just south of the U.S., there's Mexico. Mexico has very strict gun laws, but they have a far higher murder rate. Why? Because of gangs - because of the drug cartel.

Russia is hugely violent too, but they have gun laws far more draconian than the U.S.

Some of the world's most popular vacation areas, namely the Caribbean, all have murder rates far above America's, but people go there to relax, for God's sake.

Why do people go somewhere they are more likely to be murdered for a vacation? Because of their perceptions. Perception is a very powerful thing. Gun violence seems like an epidemic, a threat to society, until you see that the majority of it occurs in gang warfare. Can you stop gangs from fighting by taking away their guns? No. You have to stop people from joining gangs; you have to give them a good shot at a good life. But instead, irrational people waste time lobbying for standards on gun control instead of standards on things like education.

Yes, much is about perception. Many places are worse than America. That doesn't make Americas gun policy good. And America is usually considered a part of the western world, which is often seen as more advanced than the rest of the world. You're comparing America to developing countries. Perhaps it is the fact that I compare America to a developed country that is my mistake.

America as it is, is currently keeping crazy bastards like Kim Johng Il from firing nukes at random at countries he's pissed at.
Anyway: Education? About what? Guns? The entire world knows what guns do from the age of five. Knowing what guns do, does not stop people from using them. As a matter of fact, what they do, is why people use them.
You keep saying how America is so underdeveloped, and uneducated... Where are you from? and when was the last time your country kept another power in check?
You can't use our criminals as a reasoning as to why we're so "behind". Practically any form of punishment beyond making someone live elsewhere has been deemed unconstitutional. Does that make us backwards? That we're not killing those who kill and have been proven will kill again? Maybe. But your accusations are baseless and simply flamatory. (Yea, I know it's not a word.)
It was my understanding that you started this thread about gun control and crime; Well, you've shown your true intent was nothing more than to bash America in your ignorant little bubble.

Not education about what guns do, Americans know that far too well. Education about human life, values. To be taught that you can't just run around and shoot people.

As you asked I'm from Sweden. That doesn't matter in the slighest though. The last time my country kept another power in check was probably hundreds of years ago. We spend much of our time trying to help the victims of your controlling of other nations and taking in refugees.

And yes I'm saying America is behind. It clearly isn't working. I don't say that it's your punishments. Or that it's good to kill criminals, I don't think it is. I'm saying that you have (compared to the rest of the western world) an unproportionally high crime rate, and murder rate. I'm saying that much of the education in your country, and much of the values you defend are outdated. I'm saying that the low level of acceptance for what is different, and the lack of regard for human life makes you behind much of the rest of the world.

I did start this tread to discuss gun laws and it's effect on crimes. When doing that America is a natural extension to bring up, since it's a hot topic there, and a country where it could make a difference. A thread about gun laws in Sweden would be very short. Almost no people have guns, few people get murdered. Good. End of thread. When America got brought up other issues got covered as well, but most of it has something to do with gun control, or rather reasons for why it does or does not work.

Oh, and flammatory is a word. It just doesn't mean what you meant.

Okay, I got tired and lost my train of thought. I apologize to the ones I've apparently offended, despite not meaning to, and will clarify what I mean, and feel tomorrow if need be.

 

[Booze Zombie]

How a tool is used is all about outlook. Sweden, Norway... guns up the ass, only 2% of registered guns are used in crimes (If I remember the Wiki page correctly).
Why? Because, they are seen as tools.

It's all about the knowledge. We humans are based upon knowledge, it's the crux of our survival and power.

If people are taught to understand death, realise that guns kill what you point them at and that ending a life over an object is just stupid, we might have a better future.

 

[Silver]

Saevus, that assault weapons are only used in less than 2% of crimes is beside the point. It was most likely an example.

Why is that beside the point? Much gun control is directed towards controlling those 'dangerous assault weapons'. Clinton's AWB, the FOPA...

Stop dodging points and argue them, if you're so certain of your convictions.

Okay, just couldn't skip commenting on this one. It's beside the point because to me the model of the gun that is used to kill wouldn't matter much. And it doesn't matter in most other situations either.

 

[Saevus]

So Russia isn't a developed country?

The fact is that most people know that it is wrong to shoot people. People do, however, often think that it is alright to shoot criminals. Now, as that is a very contentious subject, I won't get into it. And of course, the real problem is that criminals feel that murder is an acceptable way to solve problems - they have no regard for others. That creates something of a vicious cycle. The rise of violence in the UK is analogous to the rise in gang violence, and no weapon bans have been successful in curbing it.

Now, you've made a serious error in talking about America when you don't actually live anywhere near it - and the view you've presented is more in line with a sensationalist media than reality. This would be something like me, a Canadian, talking about how Sweden is going the way of 1984 with the FRA law passed a few weeks ago, and how Swedes are all subservient, unquestioning automatons who fear their tyrannical government more than they love their freedom.

The reason America is not working is because of a corrupt, consumerist society that has let capitalism run so far that the divergence between classes is approaching Victorian proportions. The rich are getting richer and richer and giving nothing back, sapping the economy and ruining everything from education to equality and back for the sake of profit. Think of it as an infection: the nasty pus of gun violence may seem like a problem, but it's only a symptom. Wipe it away, and the infection still festers, and you have more violence in no time at all.

 

[Mathurin]

Hahahahaha. The constitution is a really old document full of stupid outdated laws.

Incorrect, but I forgive your ignorance as I am likely equally ignorant of your government and legal systems.

The constitution is a document outlining our basic form of government, and its powers.
While the original document is rather old, it is a living document capable of being revised with ammendments
The bill of rights (henceforth, BoR) are the first 10 ammendments to the constitution.
these ammendments are actually limitations of the governments power, not laws

This requires a short history lesson (I will keep it brief)
The Us threw out a monarchy, a strong central government. The first government was the "articles of confederation" an incredibly weak government which had almost no power, the states held the power.
It soon became obvious the the Articles needed ammended, but when the committee convened to work on them they decided to throw the whole system out and build a new one, which was essentially what we have now, a strong central government.
They went to the people and went "FTW!!!"
And the people went "WTF, lmao, we sent you to fix the articles, not to make a new gov, and WTH? we just threw out a strong central government for getting all up in our business, why would we want to enact a new one"
Finally it was decided that the constitution would work, if ammended to provide certain rights, limitations on government power.
The ammendments became the BoR, and most developed nations today believe in most of those rights/protections from government power
You know, freedom of speech religion and press, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, etc.

However, at least constitutionally speaking, these rights are not irrevocable, if the nation decided that the right to keep and bear arms was an outdated concept, then it could be ammended and removed. However it takes something like 3/4 of the popular vote to make an ammendment, and right now 3/4 of our nation couldnt even agree on what to have for breakfast.

And disallowing people to have guns has NOTHING to do with communism.

Correct, it has more to do with authoritarianism, which americans intimately associated with communism since the cold war with the USSR, an authoritarian nation which maintained a veneer of communism.

People who reason that way is what is wrong with America today, and what has turned it, wait a minute, America has never been good, that has kept America from evolving like the rest of the world. That has kept America from advancing. There's a bloody reason almost all famous serial killers come from that country. America is a horrific country, an example of what happens when a country goes bad. A warning to the rest of the world.

It wouldn't be impossible. It happens every day in the rest of the world. The parts that it seems are marked as "here be dragons and communists" on American maps.

Americans applaud the odd, the rebels, it is good to be unique.
Other nations value conformity, social norms are enforced more heavily.

There are problems with america, but its not a lost cause.


I have yet to encounter a dragon or a bona fide communist, though I have met former "communists" in my travels

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

So Russia isn't a developed country?

The fact is that most people know that it is wrong to shoot people. People do, however, often think that it is alright to shoot criminals. Now, as that is a very contentious subject, I won't get into it. And of course, the real problem is that criminals feel that murder is an acceptable way to solve problems - they have no regard for others. That creates something of a vicious cycle. The rise of violence in the UK is analogous to the rise in gang violence, and no weapon bans have been successful in curbing it.

Now, you've made a serious error in talking about America when you don't actually live anywhere near it - and the view you've presented is more in line with a sensationalist media than reality. This would be something like me, a Canadian, talking about how Sweden is going the way of 1984 with the FRA law passed a few weeks ago, and how Swedes are all subservient, unquestioning automatons who fear their tyrannical government more than they love their freedom.

The reason America is not working is because of a corrupt, consumerist society that has let capitalism run so far that the divergence between classes is approaching Victorian proportions. The rich are getting richer and richer and giving nothing back, sapping the economy and ruining everything from education to equality and back for the sake of profit. Think of it as an infection: the nasty pus of gun violence may seem like a problem, but it's only a symptom. Wipe it away, and the infection still festers, and you have more violence in no time at all.

Now don't be hard on him. But what you are saying is true. With the big company's that are in the pockets of the government pretty much dictates our life as of now by making a buttfuck amount of laws that have no use other than making the public seem to think that something is being done.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Hahahahaha. The constitution is a really old document full of stupid outdated laws.

Incorrect, but I forgive your ignorance as I am likely equally ignorant of your government and legal systems.

The constitution is a document outlining our basic form of government, and its powers.
While the original document is rather old, it is a living document capable of being revised with ammendments
The bill of rights (henceforth, BoR) are the first 10 ammendments to the constitution.
these ammendments are actually limitations of the governments power, not laws

This requires a short history lesson (I will keep it brief)
The Us threw out a monarchy, a strong central government. The first government was the "articles of confederation" an incredibly weak government which had almost no power, the states held the power.
It soon became obvious the the Articles needed ammended, but when the committee convened to work on them they decided to throw the whole system out and build a new one, which was essentially what we have now, a strong central government.
They went to the people and went "FTW!!!"
And the people went "WTF, lmao, we sent you to fix the articles, not to make a new gov, and WTH? we just threw out a strong central government for getting all up in our business, why would we want to enact a new one"
Finally it was decided that the constitution would work, if ammended to provide certain rights, limitations on government power.
The ammendments became the BoR, and most developed nations today believe in most of those rights/protections from government power
You know, freedom of speech religion and press, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, etc.

However, at least constitutionally speaking, these rights are not irrevocable, if the nation decided that the right to keep and bear arms was an outdated concept, then it could be ammended and removed. However it takes something like 3/4 of the popular vote to make an ammendment, and right now 3/4 of our nation couldnt even agree on what to have for breakfast.

And disallowing people to have guns has NOTHING to do with communism.

Correct, it has more to do with authoritarianism, which americans intimately associated with communism since the cold war with the USSR, an authoritarian nation which maintained a veneer of communism.

Ok i brought up the communism part and heres my views. Although U.S could not become communist(big companys completely limit this(I'm also sorry for bringing up the word communism. But if the goverment makes enough amendments they could change the constitution into whatever the hell they want. Now through as you said everybody does not know WTF! they are doing so i'm pretty sure it could never happen

 

[EmperorDude]

Gun laws need to be judged by the merit of keeping people safe. Are we safer if everybody is armed and ready to kill? My base instinct says no but maybe I'm too pessimistic of my fellow citizens to control themselves. But as to the argument 'we need to protect ourselves' I say bullshit. Don't know if anyones noticed but militaries have gotten just a tad bit deadlier since 1776 what with tanks, bomber planes, artilery that can kill 50 miles away, chemical weapons and even if the rebels can take over a city or even a state what are you going to do when the nukes come for you? If your naive enough to think a guy like Chaney wouldn't blow up NYC to root out his enemies you'd be in for a shock.

 

[Alliednations]

Saevus, that assault weapons are only used in less than 2% of crimes is beside the point. It was most likely an example.

Why is that beside the point? Much gun control is directed towards controlling those 'dangerous assault weapons'. Clinton's AWB, the FOPA...

Stop dodging points and argue them, if you're so certain of your convictions.

Okay, just couldn't skip commenting on this one. It's beside the point because to me the model of the gun that is used to kill wouldn't matter much. And it doesn't matter in most other situations either.

Imagine there was a shooting in a local bar of a city. A fight breaks out between two men, both drunk. A few minutes later, the fight is broken up by the bartender, and one leaves. He returns a few minutes later, armed with a M249 SAW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M249_Squad_Automatic_Weapon

Now tell me, if he were armed with a different weapon, say a Glock 17, which weapon would have a larger shock value?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock_17

It's like bringing a bomber to a gang fight; the weapon determines how important the case is when compared to the thousands of other crimes.

And while you are correct in that no matter what weapon it is, it still kills, if the same bar in the example above was destroyed by a tank rather than ravaged by gunfire, which scenario would catch your attention?

Don't lie, flipping through the TV channels or browsing an internet website, the tank is going to catch your attention. Now that we've established which is more important, then we must determine which scenario is more shocking.

Since tanks aren't exactly easy to get in the United States, more manpower and effort are going to be put into investigating how the criminal did it. If it turns out to be some black market source, most likely the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and maybe some branch of the United States Military will come together and start working on an in-depth investigation.

Let's say a few months later, the task force finds out that the black market source is part of some larger orginization which can supply any buyer with weapons availible only in Western countries. They have copies of blueprints military assets, such as the B-2 Bomber, F-117 Nighthawk, F-22 Raptor, the M1A2 Abrams, the Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser, and the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb.

Several months later, the task force discovers two traitors in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who have been selling information to the orginization. Obviously, the entire nation will now take notice in how a simple destruction of a bar has led to a mistrust of the leader's of the nation's military. And since the weapons they had availible were enough to start a coup, funding of the Central Intelligence Agency has increased, along with many other changes.

The above scenario, while entirely fictional and most likely never going to happen, shows how the weapon can make all the difference. Exaggerated extremely, of course, but sometimes people don't understand the simple truth, and must be shown an exaggerated version, in order for the extreme gravity of the situation to sink in.

By the way, that's probably an entire movie plot right there.

 

[Xeriv]

I don't remember who said it earlier in this thread, but it is probably one of the most insightful things I've heard said on this issue. To summarize, he/she said that the problem isn't gun laws or lack of such things, it's the reality of some people's horrible situations. If we improved the quality of life in the U.S. then we'd see much less gun violence. If we somehow got rid of private citizens' guns and miraculously made the U.S. a gun free nation, then desperate people would kill others with knives, axes, whatever. Doing away with guns is just dealing with the problem on the surface. Unless we dig down to that root we're going to see nasty acts of violence continue to pop up as frequently.

There are some good I could see gun control doing in the U.S. We've all heard the stories of little Timmy accidentally shooting his friend with his dad's gun, and of course the pro-gun crowd will cry that it's the parent's fault, but does that make it any less tragic? These kinds of things will continue to happen as long as we allow guns to be in the hands of private citizens, however, this doesn't seem to be the kind of threat we are dealing with most often when we talk about guns.

Sadly, I don't think that planned murders like what happened in Virginia Tech would go down if the U.S. enacted stronger gun laws. That man had been planning for a long time to kill as many people as possible, and a gun was just the easier weapon. He could have always just brought a homemade bomb to school sat down in class with it and even set it off himself. None of these guys who go mowing their way through schools are planning to make it out alive. They expect to die, so although they might not be able to satisfy themselves by such a hands-on approach, they can still get the job done. Sure it might take a few more days of preparation, or a few more weeks for these desperate people to psych themselves up, but I don't think that gun control will stop them.

What I do think gun laws will cut down on are impassioned, unplanned violence. John Doe is coming home to find someone sleeping with his wife, or whatever, it's easier to kill someone with a gun. Without a gun at his disposal John Doe might cool down a bit before he can kill someone, and the chance of someone wrestling whatever makeshift weapon out of his hands are much greater.

Also I understand that it might be hard for many Europeans to understand what it's like to be an American, but if you're going to debate American domestic policy I think it's only fair that I ask you to try. Americans are highly independent and individualistic. Many Americans feel that if they rely on anything other than themselves, that they are lazy. That's why many Americans try to cut reliance on the government out of their lives as much as possible. Therefore they see having a firearm, as taking their own safety into their own hands. It's kind of like going the extra mile for your civic duty. For that reason many Americans see policy towards getting rid of guns, or socializing any aspect of their lives as invasive. They see it as something being pushed for by irresponsible people who are willing to be treated like children so that they can suck the government tit. Now we all remember what it was like to be a child and willing to take on more and more responsibility for greater freedom. With this comparison maybe understanding the viewpoint many Americans have on guns will be a bit easier, and you'll realize that Americans aren't stupid or backward, but just have a logical but different take on things.

Also you have to understand that life in America can be very different from place to place. I have a few friends from rural Texas who are bright guys, but if you even mention gun control they go nuts. It's not because of some evil redneck indoctrination. They have just seen guns in the hand of responsible individuals all their life, and understand how guns can increase the quality of life for people from their background. They'll tell me stories of their uncle so and so who was attacked by some kind of animal. Or how far away so and so is from the nearest police station and if someone broke into his house he'd be as good as dead without a gun. Now I know a guy who's equally as bright from Baltimore who hates guns with a passion. He has seen the bad side of guns, and guns being used by gangs and stories of kids killing other kids for senseless reasons.

The point I'm trying to make is that universal policy will help some and harm others. This isn't just a no brainer. Also that different parts of America are culturally different, that doesn't mean that the side you don't agree with is inferior. It just means that their way of life is different than yours, and they have to take different factors into consideration.

Personally, I think that gun control will have positive and negative results either way, but in the end have little effect on American society in general. (Unless my rural friends can be believed, and that "Uncle Sam will have to pry the gun out of their cold dead hands." I think that as you increase the quality of life for people through means that actualize those people you'll see radical change for the better in America. You can prune the branches off of a problem, but those problems will be certain to grow back until you deal with the root of the problem.

On a side note I was shocked by how easy guns unregistered guns are to get at a gun show. Those things are insane, and make pretty much any attempt at regulation of firearms pointless. Think like a giant bazaar with any kind of gun imaginable, where you can pay cash. Not have to tell anyone your name, not have to leave any kind of paper trail or put any connection between you and the gun you just bought. The seller doesn't even have to have any kind of special license. Random guys are just walking around with guns a certain way to denote that they're for sale, and if you can negotiate a price, you can walk out with a gun.

 

[Copter400]

I'm not sure what bizzare equation people used to come to the conclusion that taking away guns will equate to more gun violence.

 

[Novajam]

As we all know If every citizen was armed, no one would be dumb enough to shoot people [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egeNrthYW20].

But more seriously,

On a side note I was shocked by how easy guns unregistered guns are to get at a gun show. Those things are insane, and make pretty much any attempt at regulation of firearms pointless. Think like a giant bazaar with any kind of gun imaginable, where you can pay cash. Not have to tell anyone your name, not have to leave any kind of paper trail or put any connection between you and the gun you just bought. The seller doesn't even have to have any kind of special license. Random guys are just walking around with guns a certain way to denote that they're for sale, and if you can negotiate a price, you can walk out with a gun.

Is there not even any sort of age check? Because that could lead to a pretty big catastrophe.

At the moment I'm fifteen, but I look older (probably because of my height and ridiculous stubble/beard thing). In fact a person from American Express once stopped me in a shopping center and tried to sell me a credit card.

Does this mean that someone my age and appearance could walk into one of these conventions and buy a gun, no questions asked? Because that seems pretty dangerous to me.

Admittedly a person who sells guns is going to be more discerning than a person who sells credit cards but we've had tanks blowing up pubs earlier in this thread, I'm sure we can suspend disbelief for a few more moments.

 

[Booze Zombie]

I'm not sure what bizzare equation people used to come to the conclusion that taking away guns will equate to more gun violence.

Well, the basic premise is that whilst Joe and Jane average would give up their guns because they're law abiding citizens, criminals are not, so they wouldn't walk into a police station and hand their gun over (big surprise).

People seem to think that police won't be able to do shit about armed criminals, so they think armed homicides will increase.

But people forget that if everyone doesn't have a gun, then no one has any real reason to actually shoot anyone, when they could just knock 'em out... because they won't be afriad of them having a gun.

 

[HSIAMetalKing]

Solution: Guns of the Patriots System. ID tag guns for soldiers.

Oh, sorry-- serious discussion going on here. Continue.