Why illegalizing guns will not work in the U.S

[Vegosiux]

I've been angry enough that if I had a gun infront of me somebody, myself at the very least, would be dead.

Making guns harder to obtain cuts down on situations such as this; momentary rage murders.

I don't think banning guns all together is the solution, but surely limiting who has access to them is a good idea.

Yeah and that's why states with large gun control tends to have the highest crime, tend to have the most mass shooting, and tend to get the most gun homicide. Say compared to states where lax gun restriction means less crime, barely any mass shooting, and having a lower gun homicide.

I asked you for a source on that before, in order to put the numbers in context. You failed to deliver. Right now it looks as if you painted a noticeable red circle on the ass of an elephant, and are trying to prove the elephant is, in fact, red, by trying to make us ignore the rest of it, except for that red circle.

 

[Ushiromiya Battler]

Am I the only one that has noticed how silly the argument ''Make guns illegal, like criminals cares about illegal'' or whatever it is named, when pretty much every massacre that turn up the guns were bought legally by people who where pretty much normal people till something said pop in their head?

They didn't become criminals before they did the shooting.

And yes, ban all guns is damn silly, you can't do that in a country ruled by their guns.
What you can do is make sure the bloody teenagers don't get the guns or at least make anything more powerful than a handgun illegal unless it comes to hunting/sports...etc..

And for christs sake, lock those damn guns in a locker where your stupid crazy kids can't get a hold of them.

And, I'm out...

 

[dagens24]

Yeah and that's why states with large gun control tends to have the highest crime, tend to have the most mass shooting, and tend to get the most gun homicide. Say compared to states where lax gun restriction means less crime, barely any mass shooting, and having a lower gun homicide.

Trying to distinguish between US states, or even worse, cities, is a pointless excersize since they share the same prevalence of firearms. In short, the US is one geographical unit when it comes to gun crime, and one can't compare it to itself.

Countries with and without a gun ban show remarkable differences in violent crime though. The showcase of the gun lobby is Switserland, but if you take into account population density and wealth, they have a soaring violent crime rate, and especially family dramas are about a weekly occurance there, because there's guns in every household, so any domestic dispute is at all times mere seconds away from turning into a massacre.

Yesterday figures were revealed in Belgium that showed the number of gun related deaths, especially suicides, were cut in half since their tightening of weapon laws in 2006. I looked it up, and there was no equivalent rise in non-firearm related deaths. The number of suicides decreased sharply and didn't return to the pre-2006 level, despite the economic crisis occuring during that time period.

Australia too tightened their weapon laws dramatically following several spree shootings, and they've not had any such shootings since, and Australian crime statistics too show that an increase in other methods of for instance homicide, do not show the same increase as the firearms decrease, meaning that the ban is indeed saving lives.

There's very little to stop cross state gun flow of firearms as opposed to cross country flow; that may well be a factor. Certainly there is large body of evidence that, when examined on a macro scale ie country by country, those with stricter firearms laws have, on average, less gun related violence. Beyond that there are all kinds of social and economy elements that come into play. But for the situation I've described there is no doubt that having a gun in the house vs not having a gun in the house will play an important factor into that type of violent crime or gun related accidents. Children, for example, cannot accidentally shoot themselves or friends when they don't have access to gun (legal or illegal); stricter gun laws would absolutely cut down of this type of issue.

 

[the clockmaker]

What is an untrained civilian popolous going to do against a fucking TANK
Most people in the US are reasoned enough to give up something at gun point.

tell that to the Al Queda who go against the strongest military in the world with a bunch of household suppplies turned into bombs.

For the love of.....

The vast, vast vast majority of old AQ is dead, so dead in fact that you never hear of the old organisation anymore, it is AQ in the arabian peninsula, a splinter faction with a fraction of the power and influence. As it turns out, fighting an insurgency like that has an insanely high casualty rate that relies soley on the enemies culture being less able to absorb casualties (so big hint, IT DOESN'T WORK AGAINST THE SAME CULTURE)

On top of that, AQ spent a long time and a lot of money training, funding and coordinating its fighters into something like a fighting force, a level of cohesion and training that all you in your head insurgents don't have.

On top of that, AQ was never the main threat in Iraq and it certaintly isn't in Afghanistan (Mahdi army and Taliban/Narco insurgents/local warlord blend respectively)

On top of that, AQ sourced its fighters from cultures that A- place a lot less value on 'me and my rights' and B- are used to a lot more hardship than your average yank and therefore could last longer out in the field, take greater personal risks and show a lot more willingness to continue the fight after setbacks.

On top of that, before AQ was effectively destroyed as a fighting force (and the majority of its fighters killed or absorbed into other organisations) it failed to complete a single one of its long term goals. There is safe haven for it and groups like it in afghanistan, Iraq's government did not fall, there is no caliphate taking hold. AQ failed in every way that it is possible to fail and it begs the question of why you would use them as an example.

On top of that, in the Mid east, the Nato forces are the outsider, they are the interloper with a limited understanding of local culture, traditions and desires, so one of the insurgents largest advantages vanishes when Nato is fighting on its own turf.

Can we have a moratorium on using war on terror anecdotes until people educate themselves a bit more?

 

[J Tyran]

I'll have to repeat myself from your other topic, because my point still stands.

Ban all guns! Ignore the fact that there are literally millions, if not billions, of guns in the U.S., a good deal of which are in the hands of private owners! The U.K. did it! Never mind the fact that the U.K. has about a quarter of the population and 2 percent of the area. If one country can do it, every country can!

The UK didn't ban all guns, they let farmers have shotguns, which is why the sawn-off has risen in popularity with British criminals.
They could have specified that guns that could easily be modified to be concealable were also not allowed, but they didn't think things through.

Shotguns are one of the most used firearms in the UK but converted pistols are common as well. Criminals would take certain blank firing and air pistols and convert them to fire live ammunition, the home office had to change the law to ban those as well. Generally the firearm bans works in the UK, the three worst mass shootings in the UK all used legally owned firearms.

But those cases where also a failure in existing legislation, for example why did a taxi driver living in a terraced house in a town and was not a member of a gun or hunting club need to own several high powered (by UK standards) hunting rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammunition? Why wasn't his fragile mental state questioned? To hold a gun license the police are supposed to examine the circumstances of the owner and have reports about their psychiatric state. All of this failed and it cost lives.

Oh and to the UK people that keep saying we never had a school shooting, unfortunately we did. In 1996 a nutter walked into a primary school carrying several handguns and gunned down 17 people, 16 of them where children. This was another failure of existing legislation but led to a ban of handguns and tougher enforcement of existing laws.

 

[Friendly Lich]

America hasn't tried banning guns and committing to it, have they? Seems to me that nothing else has worked so far. Could be worth a try.

When guns were banned in Australia, the murder rate dropped on par with that of the United States in the following 5 years. But violent crime went up 42.2%. Rape went up 29.9%. No thanks.

That is an interesting piece of information. Where did you find it?

 

[TheDoctor455]

I'll have to repeat myself from your other topic, because my point still stands.

Ban all guns! Ignore the fact that there are literally millions, if not billions, of guns in the U.S., a good deal of which are in the hands of private owners! The U.K. did it! Never mind the fact that the U.K. has about a quarter of the population and 2 percent of the area. If one country can do it, every country can!

Yes, and ignoring cultural differences makes SO much sense.

Ignoring the fact that the situations are COMPLETELY different makes SO much sense.

 

[tangoprime]

America hasn't tried banning guns and committing to it, have they? Seems to me that nothing else has worked so far. Could be worth a try.

When guns were banned in Australia, the murder rate dropped on par with that of the United States in the following 5 years. But violent crime went up 42.2%. Rape went up 29.9%. No thanks.

That is an interesting piece of information. Where did you find it?

I've linked it a half dozen times already throughout this thread as people have asked, but here it is again:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

 

[Xanex]

List of worst US serial killers in the US.

Gary Ridgway- Truck painter who confessed to killing 71 women. The United States' most prolific serial killer; also known as The Green River Killer. He almost exclusively targeted escorts from Seattle. Once there, he would proposition a prostitute, drive to the banks of the Green River, and strangle her to death. After murdering his victim he would dump her body near the nearby water. Suspected of killing over 90 victims, confessed to 71, convicted of 48.

Guns used: none

Ted Bundy- America's first "post-modern" serial killer due to his charisma and good looks. Bundy officially confessed to 30 homicides, but has confessed to killing 35-36 women in the past, and some estimates run upwards of 100 or more. Infamous for escaping from prison twice and murdering multiple victims in one day; sometimes abducting women from the same location within hours of one another.

Guns used: none

John Wayne Gacy- Known to have murdered a minimum of 33 teenage boys and young men between 1972 and 1978, 26 of whom he buried in the crawl space of his Chicago home. Gacy was known as the "Killer Clown" due to the fact he often entertained children at social events dressed in a self devised clown costume. Gacy was executed in 1994.

Guns used: none

Dean Corll- Corll was responsible for the Houston Mass Murders and was murdered by accomplice Elmer Wayne Henley when Corll turned on him. Corll is responsible for the torture and murder of 27 young boys in Pasadena, Tx and elsewhere in southeast Texas.

Guns used: none

Ronald Dominique- Known locally as the Bayou Strangler and murdered 23 victims in the Terrebonne Parish, Lafourche Parish, Iberville Parish and Jefferson Parish.

Guns used: none

Patrick Kearney- Would pick up young male hitch-hikers or young men from gay bars near Redondo Beach, California, and kill them. 27 known victims.

Guns used: none


Guns are not the problem. Evil people will do evil deeds with or without guns. So punishing all law abiding gun owners because of those determined to break the law with or without guns is senseless.

 

[the clockmaker]

America hasn't tried banning guns and committing to it, have they? Seems to me that nothing else has worked so far. Could be worth a try.

When guns were banned in Australia, the murder rate dropped on par with that of the United States in the following 5 years. But violent crime went up 42.2%. Rape went up 29.9%. No thanks.

Incidence of sexual assault in 1995 1.5 percent
incidence in 2010 0.3 percent
incidence of physical assault in 95 560 per 100 000
incidence in 2010 270 per 100 000
Source -Australia bureau of Statistics
Stop throwing lies out to support your cause, if tighter restrictions on firearms caused an increase, would we not be seeing it here?

And by the way, the vast majority of assaults in Aus are punch ups at pubs and clubs, bad yes, but introducing a gun into a punch up results in deaths instead of a broken nose.

Educate yourself, go out into the world and stop posting nonsense.

edit - and sexual assault covers all forms of inappropriate physical contact, if I were to squeeze your arse, that would be sexual assault, but it would not be rape, it is not, nor has it ever been the equivilent of rape, that major major oversight alone shows how fucking ill informed your source is.

 

[Vegosiux]

Guns are not the problem. Evil people will do evil deeds with or without guns. So punishing all law abiding gun owners because of those determined to break the law with or without guns is senseless.

Okay, let's just round up all "evil people" and dump them on an island somewhere, problem solved.

Now you just need to tell me how I can know for sure which people are "evil". We don't want to have any "law abiding people" left over in the "evil" group or vice versa, do we? And after we do that, and the "evil" and "law abiding" people are completely separated, the "law abiding" folks can enjoy a crime-free utopia, forever, huh?

You speak as if "criminals" or "evil people" are some different breed of human being, a separate, easily distinguishable species. Who the hell can blame me for not taking you seriously?

To say nothing about how some people are so damn willing to stomp their feet and cry "I'm being punished for something I didn't dooooo-hoo-hoooooo!" the moment they're asked to show some responsibility.

 

[the clockmaker]

Its not landlocked which was my point, and it wasnt the fact that the cartels bring guns into the US, which happens with the higher rate of fire dangerous weapons, but that their little wars tend to spill over into gang warfare in our nation, which is a particular problem I do not believe Australia faces.

Well, we dont have one EVERY year, more around every 2 years, but sure I will put my hand up if it makes you happy.

No, instead of having a much weaker corruption and crime ridden nation to our south, we have a much much stronger corruption and crime ridden nation to our north. In addition, you try guarding your borders when your entire north coast is almost entirely uninhabited and your entire defence force could fit into the MCG on grand final day.

It is not that we don't have gangs and ethnic conflict in Aus, it is just that we don't let them have assault rifles.

And please look up what land locked means.

 

[J Tyran]

Its not landlocked which was my point, and it wasnt the fact that the cartels bring guns into the US, which happens with the higher rate of fire dangerous weapons, but that their little wars tend to spill over into gang warfare in our nation, which is a particular problem I do not believe Australia faces.

Well, we dont have one EVERY year, more around every 2 years, but sure I will put my hand up if it makes you happy.

No, instead of having a much weaker corruption and crime ridden nation to our south, we have a much much stronger corruption and crime ridden nation to our north. In addition, you try guarding your borders when your entire north coast is almost entirely uninhabited and your entire defence force could fit into the MCG on grand final day.

It is not that we don't have gangs and ethnic conflict in Aus, it is just that we don't let them have assault rifles.

And please look up what land locked means.

You are wasting your breath, the pro gun Americans would have you believe that all smuggling happens by a dude walking over a land border. They conveniently forget the billions of tons of cargo in hundreds of millions of ISO containers and the countless mules on ferries, boats and airliners.

Having a sea border or land border is largely irrelevant to the amount of smuggling that goes on.

 

[Faraja]

Well, there is a line in Shoot 'Em Up which I think is just brilliant:
Hertz: He swore to protect our right...
Smith: To go deer-hunting with an Uzi.
And that's the point: why would anyone need fully automatic high caliber assault rifles? (And yes, I know an Uzi is not one, but you get the point) Those things are made for the military, the police forces at a cusp, but a normal person does not need one. Down here in The Netherlands, gun control is very strict, guns are only available for hunting and guess what? We hardly have any nutjobs who shoot holes in schoolchildren.

Except for that one time.

By the way, you might not realize this, but Europeans have really pulled out their own teeth. At this point, you only have as much power as your governments say you have. They do something you don't like? Sure, you can protest, but what are you going to do if the government goes ahead and decides to keep doing it anyways? Protest more? In the end, you hold no real power. Your governments have to reason to fear you as a group.

 

[tangoprime]

America hasn't tried banning guns and committing to it, have they? Seems to me that nothing else has worked so far. Could be worth a try.

When guns were banned in Australia, the murder rate dropped on par with that of the United States in the following 5 years. But violent crime went up 42.2%. Rape went up 29.9%. No thanks.

Incidence of sexual assault in 1995 1.5 percent
incidence in 2010 0.3 percent
incidence of physical assault in 95 560 per 100 000
incidence in 2010 270 per 100 000
Source -Australia bureau of Statistics
Stop throwing lies out to support your cause, if tighter restrictions on firearms caused an increase, would we not be seeing it here?

And by the way, the vast majority of assaults in Aus are punch ups at pubs and clubs, bad yes, but introducing a gun into a punch up results in deaths instead of a broken nose.

Educate yourself, go out into the world and stop posting nonsense.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
Here's mine, care to show me yours?

If you'd read any of my other posts and care to refute my logic, go for it. I've lived in places where the law abiding citizen was disarmed, and had to fear for their lives of armed criminals. It should be the other way around, and I now enjoy living somewhere where that is the case.

 

[Rigs83]

You talk about removing guns from private owners like it'd be impossible- I present to you this. Give them insintive- Give them a chance to turn them in for money, any that don't have their's taken away by force, preferably by the Military. What are they going to do? Shoot the soldiers at their door who are armed to the teeth?

Actually the whole Revolution kind of started in Lexington, MA when a bunch of British soldiers showed to take away the colonists guns so yeah you do shoot the soldier who shows up at your door. If the American soldier was so superior why is Vietnam not the 51st state?

What is an untrained civilian popolous going to do against a fucking TANK
Most people in the US are reasoned enough to give up something at gun point.

IED, a rifle firing standard NATO rounds will not penetrate tank armor and few people actually have access to weapons that can penetrate it and even then those tend to be either bolt action or fall under the small clip laws so unless a new assault weapon ban includes high caliber rounds you may still be able to have access to them.

 

[Vegosiux]

You just further prove my point that Europeans are spineless. You can sit there, and waste potential generations under totalitarian dictatorships, or you can end the problem now. But, you know, not taking a hard stand is so much easier then risking your life for your people and your country. A lot has been changed by protesting. It led to the Civil Rights laws, women's suffrage, and a number of other great things.

Maybe you should brush up on history a bit, mate. Oh yeah, I forgot, history doesn't even exist before the 1770's to you and your ilk...

And even if we only look to the history relevant to the average "FUCK YEA! U! S! A!" type of person...

Europe has seen its share of blood. Only because you were comfortably sitting on your ass over the Atlantic while Europe bled can you assert such arrogant attitude. Have your country leveled to the ground twice in the span of 30 years, and let's see you rebuild. Come on, I dare you.

 

[Faraja]

all you people are right,bad guys are going to kill people any way so lets let them have guns, may as well make it easy for them.

let not talk bull shit shall we, lets get are heads away from brain washing shit from childhoods, people will commit crimes but it is are job as members of the human race to make it are hard as we can for them to do it. you can't just say "they'll just do it any way" because they wont, dont fucking lie and tell me mass murders of children will happen without guns. sure murders will happen, people will murder other people but without automatic weapons or conseld arms or rifes you are making it hard for them to kill, very hard. the difference between kill 20 with a knife and killing 20 with a gun of any kind is so huge it isnt even worth bring up.

all you gun supports just boggle my mind, children have died, children, and you dont see guns as a problem, it just shocks me that some of you sit there and think a country full of guns isnt a problem or is okay.

The murders were committed by a disturbed man. Let's round 'em all up and get rid of them! After all, schizoids and sociopaths have no real concept of the value of human life, either, so let's just get rid of them!

Your "think of the children" argument is sad and pathetic. Far more kids are going to die tonight from very easy to solve issues then will at the hands of guns. I don't see you doing anything to fix those problems.

 

[Vegosiux]

I don't see you doing anything to fix those problems.

Well you'd have to, you know, actually get to know a person and spend some time with them before you can actually see them doing anything, don't you think?

On that note, I don't see you doing anything to fix anything either. Oh no, don't say it, I'm sure you can't because you're busy making mad money somewhere, cause you're awesome.

Yet, frankly, the people I'd suspect would want to declare themselves supreme führer and oppress me are the people who act as if they're so fucking superior and above me.

Now who has been acting that way for a while around here, I wonder?

 

[Faraja]

You just further prove my point that Europeans are spineless. You can sit there, and waste potential generations under totalitarian dictatorships, or you can end the problem now. But, you know, not taking a hard stand is so much easier then risking your life for your people and your country. A lot has been changed by protesting. It led to the Civil Rights laws, women's suffrage, and a number of other great things.

Maybe you should brush up on history a bit, mate. Oh yeah, I forgot, history doesn't even exist before the 1770's to you and your ilk...

And even if we only look to the history relevant to the average "FUCK YEA! U! S! A!" type of person...

Europe has seen its share of blood. Only because you were comfortably sitting on your ass over the Atlantic while Europe bled can you assert such arrogant attitude. Have your country leveled to the ground twice in the span of 30 years, and let's see you rebuild. Come on, I dare you.

Don't have to, we saw that shit coming. The US began to prepare for conflict with the Japanese Empire long before they started expanding. When war broke out in Europe, the US instituted a draft to rapidly expand it's armed forces, and created the Lend-Lease program to aid the Allied powers. We knew it was only a matter of time before we had to get involved, but some of our politicians wanted to keep us out of a European conflict as long as possible. When the USSR emerged as the other major world power, we were preparing for the inevitability (not the possibility) of global nuclear war.

The European nations (by which I mean France, England, and Germany) used to ready for a fight. Now it seems like you've all gone limp.