What is with the gun fetish America?

[United Tables]

England is an island only bordering Scotland, which they rule. That's the only reason they have gotten rid of guns. The US is bordered by Mexico, which has a higher crime rate and drug cartels(not saying all of Mexico is bad). 11 million people walked into America untouched. Until the border is secured, the only people who wouldn't have guns would be the law abiding citizens.

[Gun Manufacturers]

The thing is not all of us want to reduce the numbers of X item, there's no reason the average person shouldn't be able to own a gun. If you want to restrict the people who are batshit crazy that's fine, I just oppose taking away the normal persons rights.

X was gun violence. If you don't less gun-violence then well...
Batshiz people gotta get their guns from somewhere. They can't just build one. And smuggling one from Mexico is a lot harder than what it seems like in the movies. Most people rely on family members, stolen guns or buying one legitimately to gain ownership of a gun. Background checks can only do so much, especially if you plan to die/kill yourself in your planned attack.

People build firearms often. Hell, one could be built out of parts obtained solely at Home Depot. I personally wouldn't fire such a firearm though (I rely on my hands for work too much to risk them). Philip Luty (a British citizen) wrote a book about building an open bolt submachine gun, and the only thing that he didn't make out of hand tools was the ammunition.

[Big Jim P]

So America, if you want to stop gun violence why don't you just vote for people who will put much tighter regulations on guns than you currently have instead of arming people?

Because tightening gun regulation is hugely unpopular and a great way to quickly loose a lot of votes for either party. They have better things to expend political capital on. And plus, tightening gun regulations would accomplish very little besides annoying legal gun users.

Along with disarming the victims and giving the criminals free-reign.

[Lavochkin]

You can definitely protect yourself without a gun against a person who has a gun. Humans have been doing it for centuries.

"Can" is not the problem, the problem is that the parity of power is not equal, do you think that you personally could take out an active shooter without a firearm. Because I know that the circumstances allowing me to do so are unreasonably slim, I know how to fight and if I could get close enough without being noticed I'd stand a chance. I'm also decent with a bow, perhaps I should carry one of those around and hide in a tree ready to ambush. The point is I don't think I could and I've have plenty of training with and without firearms, and even going unarmed against a knife is a fight I'd rather not have.

I don't think it's a reasonable expectation.

You expect equality out of guns? I can just buy a better gun than the average joe's gun and than out-equal everyone I face. 2 soldiers of different nations can both be armed, but there's still a higher chance that one armed with the better one and with more skill using it will kill the other.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Actually you can, I can send you instructions on how to make weapons in various calibers and the ammo at home if you want. Getting black markets is also really fucking easy, like ridiculously so.

I do want to reduce gun violence, but I don't want to restrict peoples rights. I know that makes me kind of an odd one to a lot of people, but I think it's a decent position.

If you wanted to shoot your classmates in school for some reason and you're just a typical average teen. Which option would you take?

1. Get resources and build a gun and bullets
2. Search through the deepweb and buy a gun with money (a decent gun costs around $300 and most websites only take bitcoin or credit, I can't think of many kids with that much bitcoins or a credit card with that high of a limit.)
3. Take your dads gun.

Taking away people guns aren't really restricting rights. There are plenty of nations with more rights than us that has banned guns.

Either option 2 or option 4 of just getting one off the street. I wouldn't want to raise undue attention before the act.

X was gun violence. If you don't less gun-violence then well...
Batshiz people gotta get their guns from somewhere. They can't just build one. And smuggling one from Mexico is a lot harder than what it seems like in the movies. Most people rely on family members, stolen guns or buying one legitimately to gain ownership of a gun. Background checks can only do so much, especially if you plan to die/kill yourself in your planned attack.

People build firearms often. Hell, one could be built out of parts obtained solely at Home Depot. I personally wouldn't fire such a firearm though (I rely on my hands for work too much to risk them). Philip Luty (a British citizen) wrote a book about building an open bolt submachine gun, and the only thing that he didn't make out of hand tools was the ammunition.

AFAIK he actually did make a handbook on making homemade ammunition as well.

[Big Jim P]

Take your pick, they all say essentially the same thing, from the same sources:

http://bearingarms.com/murders-hit-reco ... n=baupdate
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/seco ... cides-down
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/07/7-g ... -wont-die/
http://capitalismisfreedom.com/gun-homicide-rate/
http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/ameri ... rime-rates
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/42 ... -c-w-cooke
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... l_optimist

As for ASB post, I never said guns were the only factor in the dropping crime rate, just that more guns do not correlate to an increase in crime. In fact, the correlation is just the opposite.

I also mentioned in a response to ASB, that there may have been periods where the correlation was opposite to what it is now. I have never seen stats to that effect however.

Reread the last source, because it says nothing that the others do. They suggest that more guns are responsible for less crime, whereas the Washingon Post says that it's likely that less lead, more cops, a better economy, less booze. and computers for the police that have resulted in less crime and it doesn't talk about the rising number of guns in the states, which I think is more likely.

And it doesn't change the fact that the states with less gun control, at this point in time, have higher rates of gun violence.

I put that in to emphasize that guns are not the only factor. They are a factor however.

Did you source that last statement already? If so, I missed it. If not, please do so.

[Gauthier]

It's one thing if I actually said someone said that. But to draw that assumption from what I actually said? And the constant cockblocks against any and all attempts at background check strengthening rather implies that attitude is prevailing amongst gun lobbyists.

I haven't seen any recent attempts to improve the reporting and accuracy of the NICS check, but maybe I missed it. Do you happen to have a source I could read?

Graham: Criminally mentally ill 'should not be able to' buy guns

S. 480 (113th): NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013

[Ordenburg]

"Can" is not the problem, the problem is that the parity of power is not equal, do you think that you personally could take out an active shooter without a firearm. Because I know that the circumstances allowing me to do so are unreasonably slim, I know how to fight and if I could get close enough without being noticed I'd stand a chance. I'm also decent with a bow, perhaps I should carry one of those around and hide in a tree ready to ambush. The point is I don't think I could and I've have plenty of training with and without firearms, and even going unarmed against a knife is a fight I'd rather not have.

I don't think it's a reasonable expectation.

You expect equality out of guns? I can just buy a better gun than the average joe's gun and than out-equal everyone I face. 2 soldiers of different nations can both be armed, but there's still a higher chance that one armed with the better one and with more skill using it will kill the other.

But if a shooter waltzes in and more people there have guns, suddenly it's not the 1 on 1 scenario you portray.

Also, as long as the weapon functions and is reasonably modern you have a reasonable close level of power because both function similarly enough where you need to point an shoot. His problem is that he has more targets than you do, which give you an advantage. In addition you mentioned skill, well skill also happens to involve using the weapon you have to it's advantages. The point is that with a gun you have a significantly higher chance.

[Lavochkin]

If you wanted to shoot your classmates in school for some reason and you're just a typical average teen. Which option would you take?

1. Get resources and build a gun and bullets
2. Search through the deepweb and buy a gun with money (a decent gun costs around $300 and most websites only take bitcoin or credit, I can't think of many kids with that much bitcoins or a credit card with that high of a limit.)
3. Take your dads gun.

Taking away people guns aren't really restricting rights. There are plenty of nations with more rights than us that has banned guns.

Either option 2 or option 4 of just getting one off the street. I wouldn't want to raise undue attention before the act.

1. Option 3 is less attention grabbing than 2. But that's fine with me really, that tells me you would be caught before trying to shoot a school which is a relief.
2. Option 4 is more risky than any of the other options. It's about as sound as saying buying drugs off the street.
3. It's morning, you plan to shoot the school, you takes your dads gun out of the drawer and bring it to school. Ta da, mission accomplished. Again, you're overthinking.

[Big Jim P]

If you wanted to shoot your classmates in school for some reason and you're just a typical average teen. Which option would you take?

1. Get resources and build a gun and bullets
2. Search through the deepweb and buy a gun with money (a decent gun costs around $300 and most websites only take bitcoin or credit, I can't think of many kids with that much bitcoins or a credit card with that high of a limit.)
3. Take your dads gun.

Taking away people guns aren't really restricting rights. There are plenty of nations with more rights than us that has banned guns.

Either option 2 or option 4 of just getting one off the street. I wouldn't want to raise undue attention before the act.

Technically, I bought my two off the street.

[Lavochkin]

You expect equality out of guns? I can just buy a better gun than the average joe's gun and than out-equal everyone I face. 2 soldiers of different nations can both be armed, but there's still a higher chance that one armed with the better one and with more skill using it will kill the other.

But if a shooter waltzes in and more people there have guns, suddenly it's not the 1 on 1 scenario you portray.

Also, as long as the weapon functions and is reasonably modern you have a reasonable close level of power because both function similarly enough where you need to point an shoot. His problem is that he has more targets than you do, which give you an advantage. In addition you mentioned skill, well skill also happens to involve using the weapon you have to it's advantages. The point is that with a gun you have a significantly higher chance.

But what happens if there is more shooters? Making guns easier to get for everyone means everyone can get one easier. If I were to shoot a household, I would probably bring some like-minded buddies as well. And again, the quality of the weapons matter too. 4 pistols vs 1 Automatic Assault rifle would lower the chances of the 4 pistol group of successfully fending off the intruder.

[Neu California]

So America, if you want to stop gun violence why don't you just vote for people who will put much tighter regulations on guns than you currently have instead of arming people?

Because tightening gun regulation is hugely unpopular and a great way to quickly loose a lot of votes for either party. They have better things to expend political capital on. And plus, tightening gun regulations would accomplish very little besides annoying legal gun users.

Depends on which gun regulations you're talking about tightening. For example, 90% of Americans and 74% of all NRA members want mandatory background checks, which is a tightening of gun laws.

[Washington Resistance Army]

But if a shooter waltzes in and more people there have guns, suddenly it's not the 1 on 1 scenario you portray.

Also, as long as the weapon functions and is reasonably modern you have a reasonable close level of power because both function similarly enough where you need to point an shoot. His problem is that he has more targets than you do, which give you an advantage. In addition you mentioned skill, well skill also happens to involve using the weapon you have to it's advantages. The point is that with a gun you have a significantly higher chance.

But what happens if there is more shooters? Making guns easier to get for everyone means everyone can get one easier. If I were to shoot a household, I would probably bring some like-minded buddies as well. And again, the quality of the weapons matter too. 4 pistols vs 1 Automatic Assault rifle would lower the chances of the 4 pistol group of successfully fending off the intruder.

Automatics rifles suck shit if you aren't trained with them lol.

[Big Jim P]

Because tightening gun regulation is hugely unpopular and a great way to quickly loose a lot of votes for either party. They have better things to expend political capital on. And plus, tightening gun regulations would accomplish very little besides annoying legal gun users.

Depends on which gun regulations you're talking about tightening. For example, 90% of Americans and 74% of all NRA members want mandatory background checks, which is a tightening of gun laws.

Those are old sources. Support for further or expanded gun control has fallen recently.

[Geilinor]

Depends on which gun regulations you're talking about tightening. For example, 90% of Americans and 74% of all NRA members want mandatory background checks, which is a tightening of gun laws.

Those are old sources. Support for further or expanded gun control has fallen recently.

The first source is from three months ago. Hardly "old".

[Yedmnrutika Gavr]

probably theyre just afraid of the libral gubment OR, OR its an extension of their manhood

[Gun Manufacturers]

I haven't seen any recent attempts to improve the reporting and accuracy of the NICS check, but maybe I missed it. Do you happen to have a source I could read?

Graham: Criminally mentally ill 'should not be able to' buy guns

S. 480 (113th): NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013

Thanks.

That senate bill looks like it died in committee. Hopefully, a similar bill will be put forth (with any problems fixed), and Congress can debate it.

As to the other link, I'm not sure what poisonous M&M's have to do with the topic.

And now I want M&M's.

[Lavochkin]

But what happens if there is more shooters? Making guns easier to get for everyone means everyone can get one easier. If I were to shoot a household, I would probably bring some like-minded buddies as well. And again, the quality of the weapons matter too. 4 pistols vs 1 Automatic Assault rifle would lower the chances of the 4 pistol group of successfully fending off the intruder.

Automatics rifles suck shit if you aren't trained with them lol.

Most gun-fights occur in close distance. In that situation, the ones the put more bullets out faster wins. As for skill, I think Call of Duty has proven the dumbest of the dumbs can still win.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Either option 2 or option 4 of just getting one off the street. I wouldn't want to raise undue attention before the act.

1. Option 3 is less attention grabbing than 2. But that's fine with me really, that tells me you would be caught before trying to shoot a school which is a relief.
2. Option 4 is more risky than any of the other options. It's about as sound as saying buying drugs off the street.
3. It's morning, you plan to shoot the school, you takes your dads gun out of the drawer and bring it to school. Ta da, mission accomplished. Again, you're overthinking.

Option 4 isn't risky at all, I already know where to go to do that.

And why would I just shoot the school up? I'm not going to make explosives or anything, I'm a shitty mass murderer

[Neu California]

Reread the last source, because it says nothing that the others do. They suggest that more guns are responsible for less crime, whereas the Washingon Post says that it's likely that less lead, more cops, a better economy, less booze. and computers for the police that have resulted in less crime and it doesn't talk about the rising number of guns in the states, which I think is more likely.

And it doesn't change the fact that the states with less gun control, at this point in time, have higher rates of gun violence.

I put that in to emphasize that guns are not the only factor. They are a factor however.

Did you source that last statement already? If so, I missed it. If not, please do so.

I did but I'll gladly repost it

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-la ... nd-crimes/

But that report also noted weaker gun laws were common among the states with higher gun death rates: “In fact, none of the states with the most gun violence require permits to purchase rifles, shotguns, or handguns. Gun owners are also not required to register their weapons in any of these states. Meanwhile, many of the states with the least gun violence require a permit or other form of identification to buy a gun,” reporter Thomas C. Frohlich wrote.

It does go on to say that correlation doesn't equal causation, of course. Also it notes that gun deaths and gun violence in this statistic does include suicides, but even so, it still jives perfectly with my wording

[United Marxist Nations]

Gun control doesn't work in a country with this many guns, look at Russia ffs.

Except it does, if the kinds of control are used that actually work and so long people don't expect it to magically solve all of society's problems (which some particularly fervent gun-control activists probably do).

A lack of realism is common with both extremes of the spectrum. Gun-control fanatics think it'll solve everything and fanatic gun owners think their guns will be pried from their hands by the president himself.

Like what kinds of control? I have a feeling that some of the measures you describe would be things I'm not sure I would call "gun control" (based on your attitude towards some ideas).

Sorry for the late reply, by the way.

[Gauthier]

Graham: Criminally mentally ill 'should not be able to' buy guns

S. 480 (113th): NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013

Thanks.

That senate bill looks like it died in committee. Hopefully, a similar bill will be put forth (with any problems fixed), and Congress can debate it.

As to the other link, I'm not sure what poisonous M&M's have to do with the topic.

And now I want M&M's.

Wrong link.

Graham: Criminally mentally ill 'should not be able to' buy guns

When a bill proposed by a Republican and supposedly approved by the NRA fails to pass, that seems like an indictment of the gun lobby.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Automatics rifles suck shit if you aren't trained with them lol.

Most gun-fights occur in close distance. In that situation, the ones the put more bullets out faster wins. As for skill, I think Call of Duty has proven the dumbest of the dumbs can still win.

And in the seconds it took you to type that, you've lost any credibility you might have had.

[Ordenburg]

But if a shooter waltzes in and more people there have guns, suddenly it's not the 1 on 1 scenario you portray.

Also, as long as the weapon functions and is reasonably modern you have a reasonable close level of power because both function similarly enough where you need to point an shoot. His problem is that he has more targets than you do, which give you an advantage. In addition you mentioned skill, well skill also happens to involve using the weapon you have to it's advantages. The point is that with a gun you have a significantly higher chance.

But what happens if there is more shooters? Making guns easier to get for everyone means everyone can get one easier. If I were to shoot a household, I would probably bring some like-minded buddies as well. And again, the quality of the weapons matter too. 4 pistols vs 1 Automatic Assault rifle would lower the chances of the 4 pistol group of successfully fending off the intruder.

Now back to your argument that you don't need a gun, now would you be better off with 4 guys with pistols against an automatic rifle (or even fully automatic) than 4 guys without guns. Yes or no.

I personally would rather be armed, and still have the option to flee, but sometimes that isn't an option. Currently your just throwing hypothetical situations against the wall without addressing the fact that a gun lets you adequately protect yourself compared to not having one.

[Lavochkin]

1. Option 3 is less attention grabbing than 2. But that's fine with me really, that tells me you would be caught before trying to shoot a school which is a relief.
2. Option 4 is more risky than any of the other options. It's about as sound as saying buying drugs off the street.
3. It's morning, you plan to shoot the school, you takes your dads gun out of the drawer and bring it to school. Ta da, mission accomplished. Again, you're overthinking.

Option 4 isn't risky at all, I already know where to go to do that.

And why would I just shoot the school up? I'm not going to make explosives or anything, I'm a shitty mass murderer

You don't think the police knows about street-gun purchases? There's plenty of gun busts to prove that. I know how to get drugs off the street, but is it the best option? No

And I was just hypothetically speaking. And I know you're a terrible mass-murderer, I knew it as soon as I saw the the options you choose in my question.