The general gun control thread

[Llamalandia]

Ok but how does it affect you personally on a daily basis. I mean at least with rape culture, you have women who are like"I'm afraid to walk alone at night cuz rape culture". How often are you actually going around thinking "shit I hope I don't get shot?" I mean don't get me wrong you may occasionally see an open carrier or even a protest for gun rights but those are I'm guessing fairly rare occurrences. And sure lots of people have guns so what? Lots of people have lots of things we don't go around attaching -culture to the end of every popular hobby. We don't have a golf-culture or a telephone-culture or a power tool-culture after all.

Are you serious? How many incidents are there in the US each year of people escalating disputes, domestic or otherwise, by pulling a firearm? Not even Switzerland has the same issue with firearms finding their way into verbal arguments and cases of intimidation. The gun culture in the US absolutely sucks and it will until people lose their fetish for having guns as a means of self-defense. I've said this before, but 90% of the pro-gun community on NS should not be allowed to own firearms because they fantasize about self-defence shootings so hard that they probably masturbate while thinking about it.

"THIS CUNT LOOKED AT ME FUNNY SO I GRABBED MY GUN AND POINTED AT HIS HEAD SO HE KNEW I WAS ARMED, PROBLEM? PROBLEM??"

I don't have the exact figure on me but the number is minis how relative to the total population I'm sure. I mean even if we assume there were say 1 million such in incidents last year that still means less than 1% of the population would be effected. Plus largely what you speak of, tends to happen more in the criminal subculture anyway. As any progun person will tell you, you never ever point a loaded weapon at something you aren't ready and willing to shoot.

[Llamalandia]

It's not irrelevant to the general sociological issue of gun violence. Austrians are if anything less violent than Americans, so any policy that works there will also work in America.

I ignored the rest of your post because A: you weren't providing a coherent argument at all by posting them. And B: shotgun argumentation fallacy

You bring forth actual arguments personally written by yourself and reliably sourced and we'll talk.

The problem with your argument is that it doesn't prove much. If there are less guns there are less gun crimes, that is obvious. What is not obvious, and what your links didn't prove, is that if there are less guns there is less crime.

For example if your remove guns, gun homicide may decrease, but does the general level of homicide decrees? Does the general level of suicide decrease? Do people change there methods, or does removing guns actually decrease the number of incidents.

It is not necessarily true that less guns = less gun crime. After all gangs for instance already make use of "shared community guns" that is guns which any member of the gang may borrow for a short time. Presumably if guns become more scarce, gangs may increasingly rely on this tactic and thus the number shootings may stay the same despite a drop in the tot number of guns.

[Llamalandia]

From a utilitarian perspective gun bans don't make sense. You deny a small pleasure to over a hundred million people to what, save a few thousands lives. The numbers just don't add up. Total happiness is decreased by gun bans and restrictive regulation.

[Spirit of Hope]

The problem with your argument is that it doesn't prove much. If there are less guns there are less gun crimes, that is obvious. What is not obvious, and what your links didn't prove, is that if there are less guns there is less crime.

For example if your remove guns, gun homicide may decrease, but does the general level of homicide decrees? Does the general level of suicide decrease? Do people change there methods, or does removing guns actually decrease the number of incidents.

It is not necessarily true that less guns = less gun crime. After all gangs for instance already make use of "shared community guns" that is guns which any member of the gang may borrow for a short time. Presumably if guns become more scarce, gangs may increasingly rely on this tactic and thus the number shootings may stay the same despite a drop in the tot number of guns.

Gangs only represent about 20% of gun violence, so even if they weren't effected by a reduction in guns (and they would be) less guns still intuitively means less gun violence.

Something like 40% of homicides are the result of an argument, one person gets angry and uses lethal force. Obviously if there are less guns then guns will be used less in those circumstances, however the question is will the escalating party not escalate if there is no gun? Or will they simply use another form of deadly force (knife, fist or blunt object.)?

[Sociobiology]

It's not irrelevant to the general sociological issue of gun violence. Austrians are if anything less violent than Americans, so any policy that works there will also work in America.

I ignored the rest of your post because A: you weren't providing a coherent argument at all by posting them. And B: shotgun argumentation fallacy

You bring forth actual arguments personally written by yourself and reliably sourced and we'll talk.

European and American cultures are distinctly different. What works in one might not work in another.

the american culture is no more different than England's than England's culture is from Switzerland. There are literally dozens of cultures with universal background checks or permits and lower gun violence (the US has one of the highest homicide rates in the developed world). The US is not special, people are people we have every reason to believe what works elsewhere will work here.

[Big Jim P]

European and American cultures are distinctly different. What works in one might not work in another.

the american culture is no more different than England's than England's culture is from Switzerland. There are literally dozens of cultures with universal background checks or permits and lower gun violence. The US is not special.

I did not say special, I said different. American culture has always been different from the European culture. Especially in the areas of individuality and our gun culture.

[Sociobiology]

the american culture is no more different than England's than England's culture is from Switzerland. There are literally dozens of cultures with universal background checks or permits and lower gun violence. The US is not special.

I did not say special, I said different. American culture has always been different from the European culture. Especially in the areas of individuality and our gun culture.

no it isn't, see Switzerland.
again american culture is no different from a random European countries culture than they are from one another, you are begging special pleading, there is no reason to expect that what works in literally dozens of very different cultures would not work in the US.

[Big Jim P]

I did not say special, I said different. American culture has always been different from the European culture. Especially in the areas of individuality and our gun culture.

no it isn't, see Switzerland.
again american culture is no different from a random European countries culture than they are from one another, you are begging special pleading, there is no reason to expect that what works in literally dozens of very different cultures would not work in the US.

Seeing as gun control will disarm the peaceful, law-abiding citizens, It is likely to embolden the criminal element, leading to an increase in crime (at least over a short term). Right now we are in a good place. Crime is decreasing, gun laws are loosening in many places, gun ownership is increasing, and support for gun rights is increasing. Seems to me, the best of situations.

Really, we do not need any more gun control.

[The Five Galaxies]

No guns = no massacring schools with guns.

Sure, it isn't perfect, but how can you not consider this an improvement?

1) Because school massacres are rare.

2) Because school massacres can happen without guns. The deadliest school killing in the US was carried out by a farmer using explosives.

3) Because millions of people use guns safely for recreation and sport. Why should we harm them because guns have been used for bad.

I've said this before but only about .1-.5% of gun owners ever commit a crime or hurt someone with a gun. About .03% of guns are used in a crime. That is better ratio of people hurt to number used than cars.

If guns never existed in the first place, how would people be harmed by not having them?

From a utilitarian perspective gun bans don't make sense. You deny a small pleasure to over a hundred million people to what, save a few thousands lives. The numbers just don't add up. Total happiness is decreased by gun bans and restrictive regulation.

People don't necessarily need guns to be happy.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

1) Because school massacres are rare.

2) Because school massacres can happen without guns. The deadliest school killing in the US was carried out by a farmer using explosives.

3) Because millions of people use guns safely for recreation and sport. Why should we harm them because guns have been used for bad.

I've said this before but only about .1-.5% of gun owners ever commit a crime or hurt someone with a gun. About .03% of guns are used in a crime. That is better ratio of people hurt to number used than cars.

If guns never existed in the first place, how would people be harmed by not having them?

Death by stabbing.

From a utilitarian perspective gun bans don't make sense. You deny a small pleasure to over a hundred million people to what, save a few thousands lives. The numbers just don't add up. Total happiness is decreased by gun bans and restrictive regulation.

People don't necessarily need guns to be happy.

So?

[Spirit of Hope]

1) Because school massacres are rare.

2) Because school massacres can happen without guns. The deadliest school killing in the US was carried out by a farmer using explosives.

3) Because millions of people use guns safely for recreation and sport. Why should we harm them because guns have been used for bad.

I've said this before but only about .1-.5% of gun owners ever commit a crime or hurt someone with a gun. About .03% of guns are used in a crime. That is better ratio of people hurt to number used than cars.

If guns never existed in the first place, how would people be harmed by not having them?

From a utilitarian perspective gun bans don't make sense. You deny a small pleasure to over a hundred million people to what, save a few thousands lives. The numbers just don't add up. Total happiness is decreased by gun bans and restrictive regulation.

People don't necessarily need guns to be happy.

1) Millions, maybe billions. Guns were a great equalizer and a driver of political change. Without guns ever existing feudalism may never have released its grip on Europe. Guns development was tied with an increasing understanding of metallurgy and chemistry. Who knows where science would be without guns. Then there is the question of how a small person should take on a larger opponent, a less trained opponent a more trained aggressor, a woman against a man, the average citizen against a criminal.

The Justice Department has estimated 200,000 defensive gun uses a year, private studies have said as high as 2 million a year.

2) People don't need a lot of things to be happy, alcohol, tobacco, cars, computers, TVs, books, etc. All have there damages should they be banned because we don't need them? Guns do far less damage than some of the things I just listed.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

If guns never existed in the first place, how would people be harmed by not having them?



People don't necessarily need guns to be happy.

1) Millions, maybe billions. Guns were a great equalizer and a driver of political change. Without guns ever existing feudalism may never have released its grip on Europe.

This is a common myth that ignores that feudalism was dying before the gun was common in Europe.

Guns development was tied with an increasing understanding of metallurgy and chemistry. Who knows where science would be without guns.

Probably only a few years behind. Metallurgy was also tied to armor development, which would've continued had firearms development not outpaced it.

Though really, the impact firearms left on warfare is difficult to grasp.

[Spirit of Hope]

1) Millions, maybe billions. Guns were a great equalizer and a driver of political change. Without guns ever existing feudalism may never have released its grip on Europe.

This is a common myth that ignores that feudalism was dying before the gun was common in Europe.

Guns development was tied with an increasing understanding of metallurgy and chemistry. Who knows where science would be without guns.

Probably only a few years behind. Metallurgy was also tied to armor development, which would've continued had firearms development not outpaced it.

Though really, the impact firearms left on warfare is difficult to grasp.

Since cannons saw use as far back as 1300's in Europe it is hard to say that feudalism was dying at the time. Feudalism declined for a number of reasons, one of which was the increasing value of non nobles, brought on by such things as plagues, better crop growing ability, and in part the development of gunpowder weapons which required far less training an were cheaper than skilled close combat fighters.

Armor development was in turn driven by the need for better armor to face the development of better weapons, one of those better weapons was gunpowder cannon and guns.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

This is a common myth that ignores that feudalism was dying before the gun was common in Europe.

Probably only a few years behind. Metallurgy was also tied to armor development, which would've continued had firearms development not outpaced it.

Though really, the impact firearms left on warfare is difficult to grasp.

Since cannons saw use as far back as 1300's in Europe it is hard to say that feudalism was dying at the time.

Cannons aren't what we're talking about. We're talking about small arms.

Feudalism declined for a number of reasons, one of which was the increasing value of non nobles, brought on by such things as plagues, better crop growing ability, and in part the development of gunpowder weapons which required far less training an were cheaper than skilled close combat fighters.

So guns were only a small part of that.

Armor development was in turn driven by the need for better armor to face the development of better weapons, one of those better weapons was gunpowder cannon and guns.

And... Goddammit, what were we debating again? I'm pretty sure this is irrelevant.

[The Lone Alliance]

Against it, I consider the disadvantages to outweigh whatever tiny advantages. We don't have a gun problem we have a criminal problem.

[Friedensreich]

Against it, I consider the disadvantages to outweigh whatever tiny advantages. We don't have a gun problem we have a criminal problem.

Exactly. And this criminal problem can be linked to so many things. It is irresponsible to take away guns from people and expect violence to go away.

[Tule]

It's not irrelevant to the general sociological issue of gun violence. Austrians are if anything less violent than Americans, so any policy that works there will also work in America.

I ignored the rest of your post because A: you weren't providing a coherent argument at all by posting them. And B: shotgun argumentation fallacy

You bring forth actual arguments personally written by yourself and reliably sourced and we'll talk.

The problem with your argument is that it doesn't prove much. If there are less guns there are less gun crimes, that is obvious. What is not obvious, and what your links didn't prove, is that if there are less guns there is less crime.

For example if your remove guns, gun homicide may decrease, but does the general level of homicide decrees? Does the general level of suicide decrease? Do people change there methods, or does removing guns actually decrease the number of incidents.

Having a gun in your home increases your overall risk of being murdered 1.9 times and increases your overall risk of committing suicide 10.4 times. 76% of gun homicide victims knew their killer personally and 31% were related to their killer.

Having a swimming pool in your back yard is fine for recreation and fun, but don't get one if you want to reduce your chance of drowning.

Want get a gun for plinking/hunting/competitions? Fine. But don't get one for self defence, because self defence is about reducing your risk of getting killed. Buying a gun will just arm a potential murderer in your own family.

[Llamalandia]

The problem with your argument is that it doesn't prove much. If there are less guns there are less gun crimes, that is obvious. What is not obvious, and what your links didn't prove, is that if there are less guns there is less crime.

For example if your remove guns, gun homicide may decrease, but does the general level of homicide decrees? Does the general level of suicide decrease? Do people change there methods, or does removing guns actually decrease the number of incidents.

Having a gun in your home increases your overall risk of being murdered 1.9 times and increases your overall risk of committing suicide 10.4 times. 76% of gun homicide victims knew their killer personally and 31% were related to their killer.

Having a swimming pool in your back yard is fine for recreation and fun, but don't get one if you want to reduce your chance of drowning.

Want get a gun for plinking/hunting/competitions? Fine. But don't get one for self defence, because self defence is about reducing your risk of getting killed. Buying a gun will just arm a potential murderer in your own family.

Ok but was a causative link actually established. I mean, people who are under threat or involved in shady activity, may also be more likely to own a gun, either lawfully or unlawfully. Plus, sure, sometimes people get the jump on you before you can fire back. Plus hey the actual effectiveness is going to vary with the individual. I mean, I often here people say, that if you buy a gun for defense the most important thing is to practice with it.

[Tule]

Having a gun in your home increases your overall risk of being murdered 1.9 times and increases your overall risk of committing suicide 10.4 times. 76% of gun homicide victims knew their killer personally and 31% were related to their killer.

Having a swimming pool in your back yard is fine for recreation and fun, but don't get one if you want to reduce your chance of drowning.

Want get a gun for plinking/hunting/competitions? Fine. But don't get one for self defence, because self defence is about reducing your risk of getting killed. Buying a gun will just arm a potential murderer in your own family.

Ok but was a causative link actually established. I mean, people who are under threat or involved in shady activity, may also be more likely to own a gun, either lawfully or unlawfully. Plus, sure, sometimes people get the jump on you before you can fire back. Plus hey the actual effectiveness is going to vary with the individual. I mean, I often here people say, that if you buy a gun for defense the most important thing is to practice with it.

People may obtain guns out of fear of crime, but the fact is that murder by strangers invading your home or attacking you in public are a tiny minority of all murders in the US while the vast majority are crimes of passion that happen between friends and relatives. So this fear is not a reasonable one, because what people are fearing is the same thing they are enabling by obtaining a gun.

From a public health and legislative standpoint, individual circumstances don't matter in the slightest. Guns are a threat to public safety. There might be some people who have saved their lives by using a gun, but they are heavily outnumbered by those who have had their lives threatened or taken away with guns.

[Llamalandia]

Ok but was a causative link actually established. I mean, people who are under threat or involved in shady activity, may also be more likely to own a gun, either lawfully or unlawfully. Plus, sure, sometimes people get the jump on you before you can fire back. Plus hey the actual effectiveness is going to vary with the individual. I mean, I often here people say, that if you buy a gun for defense the most important thing is to practice with it.

People may obtain guns out of fear of crime, but the fact is that murder by strangers invading your home or attacking you in public are a tiny minority of all murders in the US while the vast majority are crimes of passion that happen between friends and relatives. So this fear is not a reasonable one, because what people are fearing is the same thing they are enabling by obtaining a gun.

From a public health and legislative standpoint, individual circumstances don't matter in the slightest. Guns are a threat to public safety. There might be some people who have saved their lives by using a gun, but they are heavily outnumbered by those who have had their lives threatened or taken away with guns.

And that is the problem right there. Individual circumstances do matter. Hell, we don't even force people to vaccinate there kids. Why should the govt be able to decide what people can and can't have? If you don't want a gun in your home, don't buy one. But let those who do, have what they want. The alternative is frigging paternalistic.

[The Union of the West]

I support gun ownership, but I wouldn't be opposed to background checks to keep them out of the hands of ex-convicts or other criminals.

[Big Jim P]

I support gun ownership, but I wouldn't be opposed to background checks to keep them out of the hands of ex-convicts or other criminals.

Which we already have.

[Atlanticatia]

I dislike the idea of en masse private gun ownership, but I recognize it has a valid place in hunting, sport shooting, farming etc. But self-defence, stand your ground, castle doctrine etc? No, that undermines the rule of law and makes people think they can have their own little militias, etc which can undermine the rule of law.

For this reason I support the repeal of the 2nd amendment, as well as a long-term (say 50-year) plan to eliminate gun violence and gradually reduce the amount of privately owned firearms in circulation via increased regulations, bans on certain types of weapons, compulsory gun buy backs(compensated confiscation, I guess), etc. but that'd be a very long term thing and I still would allow rural and sporting gun ownership.

[Big Jim P]

Against it, I consider the disadvantages to outweigh whatever tiny advantages. We don't have a gun problem we have a criminal problem.

Exactly. And this criminal problem can be linked to so many things. It is irresponsible to take away guns from people and expect violence to go away.

Exactly.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I dislike the idea of en masse private gun ownership, but I recognize it has a valid place in hunting, sport shooting, farming etc. But self-defence, stand your ground, castle doctrine etc? No, that undermines the rule of law and makes people think they can have their own little militias, etc which can undermine the rule of law.

Sorry, I don't wanna wait 15 minutes for the cops to show up.