America's """Gun""" Problem...

[Genivaria]

America has no gun problem

I agree. Just because there are a lot of guns in the US does not make it a "problem"

Banning guns will not help to prevent criminals from getting them. Criminals break laws, and would illegally obtain guns.

If banning guns makes it so criminals don't get them, we should ban marijuana and cocaine so criminals don't get those either. We should also make murder and rape illegal, so criminals don't do those, because criminals never break the law.

Are you a parody?

[Galloism]

Really? I mean, it's not that hard to see the logic, even if you disagreed with the premise.

If you think voting is a good thing that ought to be done by as many people as possible, then things that could restrict some people from voting (especially if likely to have an unequal demographic impact) are bad.

If you don't think firing guns is something that ought to be done by as many people as possible, then things that might some restrict people from buying accessories that allow guns to be fired are not automatically bad and should be subject to an evaluation of the costs and benefits.

And yeah, obviously some people (myself included) think that having to (potentially) present valid ID to buy alcohol, but not to buy bullets, is a weird way of setting priorities. Like I said, you might disagree with the premise and think that as many people should be firing their guns as possible. But even if you did, I don't think the logic behind requiring ID for ammo purchases is enough to blow anyone's mind.

It is the double standard of having to present ID to exercise one right, but not another.

There is kind of a key difference that no one has ever been killed a speeding ballot.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It is the double standard of having to present ID to exercise one right, but not another.

There is kind of a key difference that no one has ever been killed a speeding ballot.

I dunno man, we did elect Dubya.

[Genivaria]

There is kind of a key difference that no one has ever been killed a speeding ballot.

I dunno man, we did elect Dubya.

I genuinely lol'd.

[Herargon]

America has no gun problem

I agree. Just because there are a lot of guns in the US does not make it a "problem"

Banning guns will not help to prevent criminals from getting them. Criminals break laws, and would illegally obtain guns.

If banning guns makes it so criminals don't get them, we should ban marijuana and cocaine so criminals don't get those either. We should also make murder and rape illegal, so criminals don't do those, because criminals never break the law.

I doubt that there is no gun problem in the States. The gun culture simply doesn't seem logical to me. Defending against a tyrannical government isn't really an excuse to wear a gun because the government isn't really tyrannic, except for the privacy breaching and police state.
Besides, how big do you guess the chance is that one will see a crime first hand? Not just some candy stealing, but a big crime like burning houses down, shooting random people, et cetera?
Only a few to no people have seen that enough to not be able to count it on their hands anymore. You're not likely to have that happen to you either.

Besides, banning guns DOES make it harder for criminals to get guns. It really does.
Increasing gun control is also more rational. Why should people with mental diseases, young people, and such, be able to access guns? Confused people with such a disease might not mean it, but they can use a gun badly. A young person that does not know what impact guns have could accidentally murder his own brother. Not a good idea either.

The complete destroying of the vivid gun culture, and a full gun control like Switzerland has/a full gun ban should improve and make the States much more safe than granting guns to literally everybody.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Besides, how big do you guess the chance is that one will see a crime first hand? Not just some candy stealing, but a big crime like burning houses down, shooting random people, et cetera?
Only a few to no people have seen that enough to not be able to count it on their hands anymore. You're not likely to have that happen to you either.

I've seen it first hand, on a couple of different occasions in two different states.

[Spirit of Hope]

Besides, how big do you guess the chance is that one will see a crime first hand? Not just some candy stealing, but a big crime like burning houses down, shooting random people, et cetera?

Between the ages of 18 and 58 there is a 33% chance of being the victim of a violent crime. This does not take into account the possibility of witnessing violent crime, since I don't have good numbers on how many people witness violent crime, but are not victimized by it.

Your chances of being victimized can obviously be increased by lifestyle factors as well. Where you live, work, play, etc.

If we add in property crimes where the victim is present, between the ages of 18 and 58 there is a 43% chance of being a victim. Again this does not include witnesses who were not victims, and lifestyle choices can again increase your odds of being targeted.

Final note, at least 60,000 people a year defend themselves with firearms in the United States.

[Individual Concerns]

I agree. Just because there are a lot of guns in the US does not make it a "problem"

Banning guns will not help to prevent criminals from getting them. Criminals break laws, and would illegally obtain guns.

If banning guns makes it so criminals don't get them, we should ban marijuana and cocaine so criminals don't get those either. We should also make murder and rape illegal, so criminals don't do those, because criminals never break the law.

Are you a parody?

Sounds like someone who understands that law is only effective if obeyed.
To some people, legal statutes are just ink and paper with less meaning than the bilines of the neighbor's copy of the Times they stole out of the yard.

[Genivaria]

Are you a parody?

Sounds like someone who understands that law is only effective if obeyed.
To some people, legal statutes are just ink and paper with less meaning than the bilines of the neighbor's copy of the Times they stole out of the yard.

Laws are effective when they are enforced.

[Big Jim P]

Sounds like someone who understands that law is only effective if obeyed.
To some people, legal statutes are just ink and paper with less meaning than the bilines of the neighbor's copy of the Times they stole out of the yard.

Laws are effective when they are enforced.

Then maybe we should start focusing on enforcing existing laws instead of enacting new ones (that would likely not be enforced either).

[Sucrati]

Laws are effective when they are enforced.

Then maybe we should start focusing on enforcing existing laws instead of enacting new ones (that would likely not be enforced either).

As part of that enforcement, we need to stop just giving people a 'slap on the wrist' punishments (basically lesser punishments to none at all). Especially if the legal argument to lessen the punishment is attributed in someway to society.

[The Conez Imperium]

Laws are effective when they are enforced.

Then maybe we should start focusing on enforcing existing laws instead of enacting new ones (that would likely not be enforced either).

That sounds like a 0 sum argument. We only have so many resources so we can't dedicate resources to check this out.

Imagine that a new law was enacted that all drivers over the speed limit must be drug tested. This wouldn't dedicate new resources as the police cars (in Australia) are already equipped with drug testing equipment. Perhaps if we extend to this to gun laws, if a say ban on the sale of assault rifles was enacted, what difference would this be between the ban between selling RPGs and the ban between selling assault rifles?

[Big Jim P]

Then maybe we should start focusing on enforcing existing laws instead of enacting new ones (that would likely not be enforced either).

As part of that enforcement, we need to stop just giving people a 'slap on the wrist' punishments (basically lesser punishments to none at all). Especially if the legal argument to lessen the punishment is attributed in someway to society.

I have long proposed stiffer (double, triple or more. Whatever it takes) penalties, including no plea bargaining or parole for criminal gun use. You know, putting the penalties on the criminal instead of targeting lawful gun owners. Of course, the gun-grabbers don't like the idea.

[Big Jim P]

Then maybe we should start focusing on enforcing existing laws instead of enacting new ones (that would likely not be enforced either).

That sounds like a 0 sum argument. We only have so many resources so we can't dedicate resources to check this out.

Imagine that a new law was enacted that all drivers over the speed limit must be drug tested. This wouldn't dedicate new resources as the police cars (in Australia) are already equipped with drug testing equipment. Perhaps if we extend to this to gun laws, if a say ban on the sale of assault rifles was enacted, what difference would this be between the ban between selling RPGs and the ban between selling assault rifles?

There is a VERY large difference between RPG and assault rifles, both are already very heavily regulated, and (in the case of assault rifles), those made since 1986 ARE banned for sale to civilians, making the legal ones incredibly expensive.

[Individual Concerns]

Sounds like someone who understands that law is only effective if obeyed.
To some people, legal statutes are just ink and paper with less meaning than the bilines of the neighbor's copy of the Times they stole out of the yard.

Laws are effective when they are enforced.

How do you enforce something that is not acknowledged?

I do not know if you have been paying much attention, but many of the worst gun crimes making the news lately are occuring in places that have the strictest gun legislation on record.

Enforcement is a dollar short and a day late in the face of a determined belligerent.

Oh, and taking my gun does not stop them from blowing you away in a gun free zone.

[Skyviolia]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... fact-check

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-g ... story.html

[Washington Resistance Army]

That sounds like a 0 sum argument. We only have so many resources so we can't dedicate resources to check this out.

Imagine that a new law was enacted that all drivers over the speed limit must be drug tested. This wouldn't dedicate new resources as the police cars (in Australia) are already equipped with drug testing equipment. Perhaps if we extend to this to gun laws, if a say ban on the sale of assault rifles was enacted, what difference would this be between the ban between selling RPGs and the ban between selling assault rifles?

There is a VERY large difference between RPG and assault rifles, both are already very heavily regulated, and (in the case of assault rifles), those made since 1986 ARE banned for sale to civilians, making the legal ones incredibly expensive.

That's why you get licenses

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-g ... story.html

Any chance you have something not so outdated? Those are both several years old.

Though I will point out that the first pro gun "myth" isn't really that much of one. There's regularly people who call for total bans and confiscations.

[Nazeroth]

Laws are effective when they are enforced.

How do you enforce something that is not acknowledged?

I do not know if you have been paying much attention, but many of the worst gun crimes making the news lately are occuring in places that have the strictest gun legislation on record.

Enforcement is a dollar short and a day late in the face of a determined belligerent.

Oh, and taking my gun does not stop them from blowing you away in a gun free zone.

dosn't matter they just make excuse, they pass law after shitty law and it dosn't help then when they don't have that excuse they go " Oh well they must be going to other states to buy"

pfffffffftttt

[Paddy O Fernature]

There's regularly people who call for total bans and confiscations.

So many in fact, that there is an entire sub reddit dedicated to it.

[Washington Resistance Army]

There's regularly people who call for total bans and confiscations.

So many in fact, that there is an entire sub reddit dedicated to it.

NOWTTYG?

[Skyviolia]

There is a VERY large difference between RPG and assault rifles, both are already very heavily regulated, and (in the case of assault rifles), those made since 1986 ARE banned for sale to civilians, making the legal ones incredibly expensive.

That's why you get licenses

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-g ... story.html

Any chance you have something not so outdated? Those are both several years old.

Though I will point out that the first pro gun "myth" isn't really that much of one. There's regularly people who call for total bans and confiscations.

You call two years ago outdated?

[Tule]

That sounds like a 0 sum argument. We only have so many resources so we can't dedicate resources to check this out.

Imagine that a new law was enacted that all drivers over the speed limit must be drug tested. This wouldn't dedicate new resources as the police cars (in Australia) are already equipped with drug testing equipment. Perhaps if we extend to this to gun laws, if a say ban on the sale of assault rifles was enacted, what difference would this be between the ban between selling RPGs and the ban between selling assault rifles?

There is a VERY large difference between RPG and assault rifles, both are already very heavily regulated, and (in the case of assault rifles), those made since 1986 ARE banned for sale to civilians, making the legal ones incredibly expensive.

Looks like gun control works then.

[Nazeroth]

There is a VERY large difference between RPG and assault rifles, both are already very heavily regulated, and (in the case of assault rifles), those made since 1986 ARE banned for sale to civilians, making the legal ones incredibly expensive.

Looks like gun control works then.

no because most people don't have a use for an RPG or assault rifle....that's why they are never used.

you don't rob a bank with an RPG-7...

[Paddy O Fernature]

So many in fact, that there is an entire sub reddit dedicated to it.

NOWTTYG?

*ding*

[Washington Resistance Army]

You call two years ago outdated?

I do yeah, I also question the second source because it's pretty common for the most heavily restricted areas gun wise tend to have the highest rates of gun crime. Chicago is a shining beacon of that.

There is a VERY large difference between RPG and assault rifles, both are already very heavily regulated, and (in the case of assault rifles), those made since 1986 ARE banned for sale to civilians, making the legal ones incredibly expensive.

Looks like gun control works then.

Not really, any dumbass can make a machine gun in their garage and entirely bypass the NFA.