Why illegalizing guns will not work in the U.S

[Vegosiux]

Denying Evil is no way to go about life.

Neither is automatically assuming you're one of the good guys who can do no wrong.

This isn't a superhero comic, it's the real world, where there's no such thing as clearly defined "good guys" and "bad guys".

 

[AMMO Kid]

Killers and thugs will get guns regardless of whether or not they are made illegal. I want a gun to protect my family from those killers and thugs. Plain and simple.

I've heard somewhere that the majority of gun-related crime in the US arises from domestic disputes rather than gang violence or thugs. For every 1 in 10 use of the gun that involved defending a family or loved one, there are 9 emotionally damaged people who go nuts because their wives were unfaithful, their friends betrayed them, or whatever and do something they'll regret. I would argue that it's a pretty steep price to pay for the privilege of having relaxed gun laws. What's wrong with a taser or another non-lethal option? Surely they are just as effective in a defensive capacity?

Let's say for a minute that what you said about 9/10 is a fact. Even then I want my guns to protect my family. I know people who have been shot by intruders in their homes because they didn't have guns, and I don't want that to happen to me regardless of how low the chances of that happening would be under this figure. The "bad guys" are going to get guns anyway, so I should have the right to defend myself with one. But I do agree that they should pass laws that make it so you have to jump through an extra hoop or two to get guns like having to pass a psyche-analyses first. Though I'm not sure how that 9/10 holds up under scrutiny. I mean come on, do major cities in America known for gang violence and high murder rates have this ridiculous figure? Or are there just areas with a high amount of gun violence and a 10/10 record to balance it out? I don't think you know much about LA for example if you think that America is just a fine and peachy country with very little gang and thug violence. Try living in a place like that yourself for a year and see if you still are against owning your own gun.

 

[Colt47]

*Reads the pro-gun posts and the pro-control posts.

Wow, the ignorance is astounding. First we have people on the pro-control side spamming the word assault rifle and murder, with no idea of what an assault rifle is, and then we have people on the pro-gun side saying we need more guns to solve the gun violence problem!

First, there are no assault rifles that can be owned legally outside of preban weapons, which require layers of paperwork and police tracking. Second, who in their right mind would think the best solution to the problem is more guns? How exactly would preparedness drills go for a deranged parent or teen with a sawed off shotgun? I keep getting this picture in my head of school teachers now being required to go through firearms training and then yearly marksmanship tests, which ultimately seems like some kind of curve ball promotion for the firearms industry.

People got to accept the fact that neither extreme is going to work in the US, because we got a bipartisan culture that doesn't agree on the subject of gun control.

 

[Ashley Blalock]

The only way to legally ban all guns in the United States would be to pass a Constitutional amendment that would make the second amendment null and void. Anything less than that and the Supreme Court would strike it down. Given the current political climate in Washington there is no chance in hell of that happening any time soon.

You also have the very massive problem of disarming everyone in a nation that has it's fair share of people already paranoid that the government is out to get them somehow. People who view disarmament of the civilian population as a precursor to government tyranny.

Combined with the problem of the US can't keep drugs out of the nation so what chance would they ever have of keeping guns out of the nation? If Israel can't keep guns out of Gaza then the US is just too large to keep all guns out.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Some of you have read this, but most of you haven't.

"By LTC(Ret.) Dave Grossman, Ranger,
Ph.D., author of "On Killing"

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains:
What is worth defending?
What is worth dying for?
What is worth living for?
- William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident."

This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation.

They are sheep. I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me, it is like the pretty, blue robin?s egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep.

There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf." If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

snip

So the reason you think we should have few restrictions on guns, is because of some sort of wishful hero complex?

I do know that dealing with the mental strain of being involved in a firefight is something that is drilled into police and soldiers for years and even they struggle with making those life-and-death decisions. How can you say that the average armed citizen would fare better, or in the very least, not make the situation worse?

Would your rather have 20 dead children or one teacher that has difficulty dealing with the fact that they shot someone?

That totally answered my question.

And good luck finding a teacher with the mental fortitude and skill to put down a guy with an AR and body armor.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

Yep, because everyone starts sending rounds down range.

I do know teachers that would carry if they were allowed to. Hell, I know teachers that carried because they were able to (and oddly, it was against the law.) Many of these teachers were ex-military and ex-law enforcement or just people that would rather dictate how their life went, rather than giving that to some one else. We do have sheepdogs in society that have the ability to prevail in those times of strife. Lumping teachers into a group of "sheep" is dishonest at best.

Stop living in denial. We live in a violent world, dismissing the fact that evil exists, and that good men and women can fight against it will help no one.

Just to let you know, there was an armed guard present at the Columbine massacre. That armed guard got into a big shoot out with Eric Harris, but couldn't bring down the kid because he wasn't as well equipped. Think about that, a trained armed guard could not take out a teenager due to having inferior firepower... That's scary.

Link:[link]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/columbine-armed-guards-schools-students-safe-article-1.1225796[/link]

Oh, and Virginia Tech had an on campus police department, which is totally the norm for colleges to have. That didn't stop 32 people from dying and another 32 to be injured.

Now you want to put guns in the hands of teachers. Yeah, that would totally work. Because there has never been a mass shooting where there were a ton of guns and people trained to use them right?


Fucking wrong.

Fort Hood. A military base was shot up. Don't feed people this crap about how having teachers with guns will make schools safe, especially when a base filled with trained soldiers could not stop one of their own from killing 13 people and injuring another 20+

 

[saruman31]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSp7CipN1pw

`MURICA!!! Enough said.

 

[Andy Beaumont]

If the NRA argues that it would be safer if more people have guns then why not make it like driving a car? You have to go through some form of mandatory training consisting of maintenance, safety and how to use a firearm effectively to protect yourself or others. You would then be tested and if you passed, receive a license allowing you to carry a weapon, different licenses for different levels of weapon or something like that... The point is, you couldn't just go into a shop and buy a weapon based on having no metal health or convictions in your background, you would have to be properly trained to appreciate the awesome power a weapon has to take another's life, surely following the NRA's argument of more guns=safer America, this level of training would mean a normal citizen would have the training to take down such a madman and so should be supported by them.

America is too far gone to remove all weapons, weapons are a complete aspect of their culture, they used to need guns, they don't NEED them anymore. If you were on the frontier on your own years before effective law enforcement then maybe yes you needed a weapon, but living in the middle of a metropolis I really cannot see the need unless others have guns as well. So as guns are so deep rooted in America with millions in circulation then surely effective training for ownership would do more to equalise a situation than just arming everyone or attempting to ban guns altogether?

People seem to be arguing too much over the gun issue due to this Sandy Hook massacre, not the issue of mental health treatment. A common aspect of all of these cultures people keep bringing up that have high levels of gun ownership but a low murder rate is an advanced form of healthcare system that is either free (due to slightly higher taxes so no need for insurance) or much much cheaper and more effective in terms of mental health than the US model of dosing someone up and then out of sight and out of mind. I am NOT saying this is the only reason why there is a lower murder rate, I understand the cultural differences and other factors must obviously be taken into account, just making an observation.

 

[Vegosiux]

People seem to be arguing too much over the gun issue due to this Sandy Hook massacre, not the issue of mental health treatment.

Pop quiz. What is the most likely response a "privileged straight white male" is going to get over there when calling for help?

 

[Andy Beaumont]

People seem to be arguing too much over the gun issue due to this Sandy Hook massacre, not the issue of mental health treatment.

Pop quiz. What is the most likely response a "privileged straight white male" is going to get over there when calling for help?

I am not saying he himself would have to seek it, people are now saying his mother was seeking mental health treatment for her son anyway. It is ridiculously hard in the US to get a person taken in for involuntary treatment, even if you are their mother or another form of caregiver. Its not about locking people up in institution and asylums anymore, its much more about talking to a person and understanding what issues they may have. America will never allow this though, they wouldn't allow people to be involuntarily sectioned so easily because of infringements of rights, even if it may actually help a person in the long term, and even avert tragedies such as this.

 

[Vegosiux]

I am not saying he himself would have to seek it

I am saying that even if he sought help, the society feedback would very likely have been "Shut up and grow a pair, you pussy". It's not the healthcare system that's at fault, it's the society itself. Nothing abut involuntary being locked up, but everything about becoming a social pariah because you sought professional help with your mental problems.

That does, of course, in a large part depend where you live, but...

 

[kgpspyguy]

-wonka-

Again, I'm going to slap this one on here.

You don't win an argument with a quickmeme generator, and if "But criminals will always break laws because they're criminals!" is all you have to say for your case, maybe you should stand aside and let people who actually make good points speak for that case, as you're doing it a disservice.

So whats you're good point then, oh right you dont have one.

 

[Vegosiux]

So whats you're good point then, oh right you dont have one.

I'm not one to waste good points on people who won't even try to understand them. Pearls before swine and all that.

 

[Andy Beaumont]

Criminals will always have guns.

Therefore give everyone assualt rifles.

Logic.

Ironically in the UK people with guns are targeted by gangs more, because they want to steal the guns for criminal usage. Most shootings are done with shotguns which were owned by farmers at one point.

 

[PZF]

Fort Hood. A military base was shot up. Don't feed people this crap about how having teachers with guns will make schools safe, especially when a base filled with trained soldiers could not stop one of their own from killing 13 people and injuring another 20+

When one factors in that Clinton disarmed all US military bases except for key personel (Mp's and such), and that just because one is serving in the military that doesn't mean their super solider delta ranger commandos. I'd bet most logistical people aren't badass commandos. I'd bet most mechanic people aren't badass commandos. I'd bet most finance people aren't badass commandos. I'd bet most transportation people aren't badass commandos.

 

[Vegosiux]

When one factors in that Clinton disarmed all US military bases except for key personel (Mp's and such), and that just because one is serving in the military that doesn't mean their super solider delta ranger commandos. I'd bet most logistical people aren't badass commandos. I'd bet most mechanic people aren't badass commandos. I'd bet most finance people aren't badass commandos. I'd bet most transportation people aren't badass commandos.

Or, to paraphrase Yahtzee, all these people talk about how they'd put up DA RESISTANCE against EVIL AND OPPRESSIVE GUB'MENT while truth is they'd more likely be talking suicide pacts if their internet went down for more than a week.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Fort Hood. A military base was shot up. Don't feed people this crap about how having teachers with guns will make schools safe, especially when a base filled with trained soldiers could not stop one of their own from killing 13 people and injuring another 20+

When one factors in that Clinton disarmed all US military bases except for key personel (Mp's and such), and that just because one is serving in the military that doesn't mean their super solider delta ranger commandos. I'd bet most logistical people aren't badass commandos. I'd bet most mechanic people aren't badass commandos. I'd bet most finance people aren't badass commandos. I'd bet most transportation people aren't badass commandos.

I still bet that a military base is more heavily fortified with arms than most places in the general public. More guns in the hands of "good guys" doesn't make places safer. This talk of having teachers with guns is lunacy. If you gave guns to teachers the next Eric Harris (because there will be another mass school shooting, that is a given) will probably wind up stealing guns from teachers and using them against students and faculty.

The Sandy Hook shooter (who I refuse to name because I'd rather people remember the victims than make the shooter a celebrity) stole his mother's guns. His mother was a law abiding citizen. Teachers with guns would be law abiding citizens. If a person can steal his mother's guns, he can steal his teacher's guns as well.

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

I live in Puerto Rico, where owning a gun legally is considered a privilege due to how expensive the government has made the process. You have to spend almost 2k before you're even allowed to touch a gun. Meanwhile, illegal guns are so prevalent that they even rent out illegal guns to criminals to commit crimes.

This has led to record murder rates and an island where all the bad guys have guns, the civilians are told to count on the police for assistance, meanwhile the criminals shoot at the cops like they were a rival drug dealer. So basically you can only count on yourself for protection and very few people in the island have guns legally. You will rarely hear about how a civilian took down a bad guy in this island with a legal gun, being a New Yorker and an American I don't want that for my country.

 

[Vankraken]

How about we talk less about "removing all the guns" and talk about improving the health care system so people can get affordable mental health care and also spread public awareness so people better understand mental illness. Events like school killings are not caused by access to guns but because somebody is mentally ill to the point that they feel mass murder is a viable option. On a related note with the columbine shooting, they made numerous explosive devices which are 100% illegal and yet they had these items and were going to use them. Removing the tools people use to kill isn't going to stop people from killing (or making there own tools to kill). In cases involving mentally ill people going on rampages if they had proper medical treatment and the community had a better understanding of mental illness then maybe these events could of been prevented. Lets try to fix actual problems instead of scapegoating things that are not a problem for 99.99% of the population.

Improving the education and health system will have far greater impacts on crime and rampage events than stricter gun control (point out that a large percentage of gun related crimes are done with illegally owned guns because if somebody is going to commit a crime then why would they let other laws stand in there way?) Also lets look at drugs, to my knowledge drugs outside of weed are 100% illegal everywhere in the US and yet you can probably find somebody dealing in nearly every city. Make guns illegal and you just create a bigger black market of gun trafficking.

 

[BakedZnake]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20838925

NRA solution: America needs more guns, ARM THE FIREFIGHTERS!