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

[Peristroykas]

This should be something for everyone to understand

...what? Just that the "gun problem" isn't really a thing?

Yes

[Hyggemata]

It's a mental health problem, sure, but it's also a gun problem. Like how gang violence is a poverty problem, a drug policy problem, and a gun problem too. And generally, depressed people aren't going to be losing their guns just because of the depression.

See, the issue with gangs and guns is that most of the time, gangs don't get their guns legally. According to this, most of the guns obtained by criminals are from theft, friends and family, social networks, and within the gang itself. That's where the whole pro-gun side gets its statement, "If you ban guns it won't stop criminals from getting them". Hell, if a gang is involved in the drug trade, they might be getting guns from the cartels supplying them from over the border, you never know. Either way, saying, "Ban the guns to stop the gun violence" is a facile solution that lacks nuance.

I see their point; however, if that stops a government, then its currency and sovereign debt are not worth keeping as reserve. Such impotence could easily be characterized as sovereign risk.

If only they spent 10% of the energy they did in rooting out communists, we could have eliminated firearms from the USA by 2020.

[Hyggemata]

User 1: ban guns to stop gun crime

User 2: guns stop more crime than they commit

User 1: how many of those crimes could be eliminated by not having guns in the first place and how many could be prevented by means other than guns?

User 2 disconnected.

^This is literally how every gun control/elimination argument ends up when I'm involved.

[Big Jim P]

See, the issue with gangs and guns is that most of the time, gangs don't get their guns legally. According to this, most of the guns obtained by criminals are from theft, friends and family, social networks, and within the gang itself. That's where the whole pro-gun side gets its statement, "If you ban guns it won't stop criminals from getting them". Hell, if a gang is involved in the drug trade, they might be getting guns from the cartels supplying them from over the border, you never know. Either way, saying, "Ban the guns to stop the gun violence" is a facile solution that lacks nuance.

I see their point; however, if that stops a government, then its currency and sovereign debt are not worth keeping as reserve. Such impotence could easily be characterized as sovereign risk.

If only they spent 10% of the energy they did in rooting out communists, we could have eliminated firearms from the USA by 2020.

As if that is a good thing.

BTW, in May 1.87 million new guns were added to Americans stockpile. At this rate we'll have another 13 million by the end of the year.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

User 1: ban guns to stop gun crime

User 2: guns stop more crime than they commit

User 1: how many of those crimes could be eliminated by not having guns in the first place and how many could be prevented by means other than guns?

User 2 disconnected.

^This is literally how every gun control/elimination argument ends up when I'm involved.

Irrelevant. You've no right to deprive me of a gun. I want a gun; I'll have one. And that's the only justification anyone needs.

[Peristroykas]

User 1: ban guns to stop gun crime

User 2: guns stop more crime than they commit

User 1: how many of those crimes could be eliminated by not having guns in the first place and how many could be prevented by means other than guns?

User 2 disconnected.

^This is literally how every gun control/elimination argument ends up when I'm involved.

Irrelevant. You've no right to deprive me of a gun. I want a gun; I'll have one. And that's the only justification anyone needs.

True.
You're kinda like me...

[Elepis]

User 1: ban guns to stop gun crime

User 2: guns stop more crime than they commit

User 1: how many of those crimes could be eliminated by not having guns in the first place and how many could be prevented by means other than guns?

User 2 disconnected.

^This is literally how every gun control/elimination argument ends up when I'm involved.

Irrelevant. You've no right to deprive me of a gun. I want a gun; I'll have one. And that's the only justification anyone needs.

you have no right to have a gun as a human, yes it says it in the second amendment but that too can be amended. You don't have a human right to a gun.

[Big Jim P]

User 1: ban guns to stop gun crime

User 2: guns stop more crime than they commit

User 1: how many of those crimes could be eliminated by not having guns in the first place and how many could be prevented by means other than guns?

User 2 disconnected.

^This is literally how every gun control/elimination argument ends up when I'm involved.

1: Unless you can time travel, not having guns in the first place is not possible, and using that as an argument is not too bright.

2: ven were it possible, how many of the potential victims who have defended themselves with guns would have been unable to? 100%.The positives of gun ownership VASTLY outweigh the negatives.

[Big Jim P]

Irrelevant. You've no right to deprive me of a gun. I want a gun; I'll have one. And that's the only justification anyone needs.

you have no right to have a gun as a human, yes it says it in the second amendment but that too can be amended. You don't have a human right to a gun.

And you STILL don't have the right to deprive anyone of a gun.

[Elepis]

User 1: ban guns to stop gun crime

User 2: guns stop more crime than they commit

User 1: how many of those crimes could be eliminated by not having guns in the first place and how many could be prevented by means other than guns?

User 2 disconnected.

^This is literally how every gun control/elimination argument ends up when I'm involved.

1: Unless you can time travel, not having guns in the first place is not possible, and using that as an argument is not too bright.

2: ven were it possible, how many of the potential victims who have defended themselves with guns would have been unable to? 100%.The positives of gun ownership VASTLY outweigh the negatives.

you can seize guns, you can stop selling them, you can make them illegal and a lot of people will hand them over. Yes there will be a lot left but if you crack down on guns, the numbers will be dramatically reduced. We have far, far stricter gun laws in the UK and guess what, we do not have anywhere near as many murders/violence in fact we are safer.

[Washington Resistance Army]

1: Unless you can time travel, not having guns in the first place is not possible, and using that as an argument is not too bright.

2: ven were it possible, how many of the potential victims who have defended themselves with guns would have been unable to? 100%.The positives of gun ownership VASTLY outweigh the negatives.

you can seize guns, you can stop selling them, you can make them illegal and a lot of people will hand them over. Yes there will be a lot left but if you crack down on guns, the numbers will be dramatically reduced. We have far, far stricter gun laws in the UK and guess what, we do not have anywhere near as many murders/violence in fact we are safer.

I don't think you understand how many guns/gun owners there are in this country.

[Elepis]

you have no right to have a gun as a human, yes it says it in the second amendment but that too can be amended. You don't have a human right to a gun.

And you STILL don't have the right to deprive anyone of a gun.

yes you do, if it is made illegal. Like the police would take and RPG off you or a vial of sarin

[Big Jim P]

User 1: ban guns to stop gun crime

User 2: guns stop more crime than they commit

User 1: how many of those crimes could be eliminated by not having guns in the first place and how many could be prevented by means other than guns?

User 2 disconnected.

^This is literally how every gun control/elimination argument ends up when I'm involved.

Irrelevant. You've no right to deprive me of a gun. I want a gun; I'll have one. And that's the only justification anyone needs.

Indeed. A person does not need to justify exercising a right. Those who would restrict anothers rights are the ones who have to provide the justification. Another place where the gun-grabbers fail.

[Elepis]

you can seize guns, you can stop selling them, you can make them illegal and a lot of people will hand them over. Yes there will be a lot left but if you crack down on guns, the numbers will be dramatically reduced. We have far, far stricter gun laws in the UK and guess what, we do not have anywhere near as many murders/violence in fact we are safer.

I don't think you understand how many guns/gun owners there are in this country.

we had a bloody civil war going on in the UK until the late 1999's so yeah, safe to say we had a fair few guns.

[Elepis]

Irrelevant. You've no right to deprive me of a gun. I want a gun; I'll have one. And that's the only justification anyone needs.

Indeed. A person does not need to justify exercising a right. Those who would restrict anothers rights are the ones who have to provide the justification. Another place where the gun-grabbers fail.

it is not a right though

[Washington Resistance Army]

I don't think you understand how many guns/gun owners there are in this country.

we had a bloody civil war going on in the UK until the late 1999's so yeah, safe to say we had a fair few guns.

Not even remotely close to how many we have.

To put it into perspective, based on recent selling numbers and whatnot the total number of firearms is over 400,000,000 and there's some 100,000,000 gun owners.

[Hyggemata]

User 1: ban guns to stop gun crime

User 2: guns stop more crime than they commit

User 1: how many of those crimes could be eliminated by not having guns in the first place and how many could be prevented by means other than guns?

User 2 disconnected.

^This is literally how every gun control/elimination argument ends up when I'm involved.

Irrelevant. You've no right to deprive me of a gun. I want a gun; I'll have one. And that's the only justification anyone needs.

I suppose you would like your ius primae noctis as well?

Freedom =\= right.

[The East Marches]

I don't think you understand how many guns/gun owners there are in this country.

we had a bloody civil war going on in the UK until the late 1999's so yeah, safe to say we had a fair few guns.

The Irish were amateurs and the density of arms wasnt nearly the same. There is a reason the PSNI still use armored land rovers and carry guns. It's not because they totally solved the problen.

[Senkaku]

Irrelevant. You've no right to deprive me of a gun. I want a gun; I'll have one. And that's the only justification anyone needs.

Indeed. A person does not need to justify exercising a right. Those who would restrict anothers rights are the ones who have to provide the justification. Another place where the gun-grabbers fail.

I think the fundamental issue is that us evil "gun-grabbers" just don't see why it should be a right. I'm not in favor of terking teh gunz or whatever it is that gun nuts and the NRA are afraid of, though I do support regulations, but frankly when people just justify their gun ownership with "it's mah right", it makes me raise an eyebrow. I'm not convinced it should be a right, frankly. Not everything the Founding Fathers wrote down was terribly intelligent (see: black people count as 3/5ths of a white person).

[Freedom in Unition]

User 1: ban guns to stop gun crime

User 2: guns stop more crime than they commit

User 1: how many of those crimes could be eliminated by not having guns in the first place and how many could be prevented by means other than guns?

User 2 disconnected.

^This is literally how every gun control/elimination argument ends up when I'm involved.

Fine, then let's talk an ACTUAL conversation instead of one you just made up without evidence.

We can't take the guns with gun control. It's irrational to think it. By trying to take everyone's guns, the only change we serve to do is take law abiding citizens' guns and make other law abiding citizens non-violent criminals. Violent criminals have a huge black market for already illegal weaponry. They'll have the weapons, while the majority of citizens do not. And crimes that involve guns are going to be pretty hard to stop unless the police come or the citizens have guns, and the police is coming anyway. What the hell are you supposed to do in a bank robbery, hide?

[Elepis]

we had a bloody civil war going on in the UK until the late 1999's so yeah, safe to say we had a fair few guns.

Not even remotely close to how many we have.

To put it into perspective, based on recent selling numbers and whatnot the total number of firearms is over 400,000,000 and there's some 100,000,000 gun owners.

We had the Troubles in N.Ireland in which hundreds of thousands of people (for a region of 1.8 million) had guns, but since the Troubles ended many of those guns taken away and if any where produced, they would immediately be seized. And thanks to strict gun controls in the rest of the country, hardly any guns wound up here (well a few, but as a percentage, hardly any).

FYI: Many guns in the Troubles were provided by American gun owners, thanks!

[Hyggemata]

I see their point; however, if that stops a government, then its currency and sovereign debt are not worth keeping as reserve. Such impotence could easily be characterized as sovereign risk.

If only they spent 10% of the energy they did in rooting out communists, we could have eliminated firearms from the USA by 2020.

As if that is a good thing.

BTW, in May 1.87 million new guns were added to Americans stockpile. At this rate we'll have another 13 million by the end of the year.

The United States is one of the largest arms manufacturers in the world, and that's the primary reason why we can't push through gun legislation. Big Pharma Arma will simply collapse; thousands of jobs may be lost; millions in investments may go down the drain when companies fold; retirement pensions may also evaporate when they go down with the investments. I'm not saying that these are more important than protecting human lives, but they are issues that must be attended to if we are to have a remotely satisfactory solution to both sides of the equation.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Indeed. A person does not need to justify exercising a right. Those who would restrict anothers rights are the ones who have to provide the justification. Another place where the gun-grabbers fail.

I think the fundamental issue is that us evil "gun-grabbers" just don't see why it should be a right. I'm not in favor of terking teh gunz or whatever it is that gun nuts and the NRA are afraid of, though I do support regulations, but frankly when people just justify their gun ownership with "it's mah right", it makes me raise an eyebrow. I'm not convinced it should be a right, frankly.

We just want the freedom to do what we want, I'm sorry that isn't enough to convince you.

Not to mention we already deal with all sorts of nonsensical regulations and they haven't done anything to stop crime.

Not even remotely close to how many we have.

To put it into perspective, based on recent selling numbers and whatnot the total number of firearms is over 400,000,000 and there's some 100,000,000 gun owners.

We had the Troubles in N.Ireland in which hundreds of thousands of people (for a region of 1.8 million) had guns, but since the Troubles ended many of those guns taken away and if any where produced, they would immediately be seized. And thanks to strict gun controls in the rest of the country, hardly any guns wound up here (well a few, but as a percentage, hardly any).

FYI: Many guns in the Troubles were provided by American gun owners, thanks!

Cool, I don't see what that has to do with America.

[Elepis]

I think the fundamental issue is that us evil "gun-grabbers" just don't see why it should be a right. I'm not in favor of terking teh gunz or whatever it is that gun nuts and the NRA are afraid of, though I do support regulations, but frankly when people just justify their gun ownership with "it's mah right", it makes me raise an eyebrow. I'm not convinced it should be a right, frankly.

We just want the freedom to do what we want, I'm sorry that isn't enough to convince you.

You can't just say "Freedom" to everything, some people out there want to "Freedom" to get married to children, that in no way makes it right

We had the Troubles in N.Ireland in which hundreds of thousands of people (for a region of 1.8 million) had guns, but since the Troubles ended many of those guns taken away and if any where produced, they would immediately be seized. And thanks to strict gun controls in the rest of the country, hardly any guns wound up here (well a few, but as a percentage, hardly any).

FYI: Many guns in the Troubles were provided by American gun owners, thanks!

Cool, I don't see what that has to do with America.

Because we had a massive gun problem, but thanks to gun control now we don't

[Washington Resistance Army]

We just want the freedom to do what we want, I'm sorry that isn't enough to convince you.

You can't just say "Freedom" to everything, some people out there want to "Freedom" to get married to children, that in no way makes it right

Cool, I don't see what that has to do with America.

Because we had a massive gun problem, but thanks to gun control now we don't

Well I don't want to marry children so I don't see what the fuck that has to do with anything.

Again, your country was never even in the same ballpark as the US when it comes to guns. It's just not comparable.