Serious Points about Gun Control Everyone Should Know.

[Arctic55]

[Progenitor]

what?

All I got was a history lesson and a completely arbitrary conclusion jump linking gun regulation laws to genocide.

 

There is one enormous thing that disputes that claim.  An equal or greater number of stable countries enacted the same exact laws and saw nothing but positive benefits, such as the case in Australia.  In fact in all of the examples he listed, none of them were truly democratic.  No, they were already corrupt.  Like MAJORLY corrupt regimes.  In order for gun registration to lead to gun confiscation, and thus to genocide, your government FIRST has to be run by lunatics.

 

The US's government may be a pile of crap right now, but they aren't psychopaths.  This video does nothing but tell you half of a truth and then champion it as the whole truth,

[Maeriberii Haan]

you know, if the US government really wants to conduct genocide for any arbitrary reasoning they'd have, do you think citizens bearing arms would have any effect to that?

[Dad]

you know, if the US government really wants to conduct genocide for any arbitrary reasoning they'd have, do you think citizens bearing arms would have any effect to that?

 

They have tanks, bigger guns, nukes, and a bunch of other sheet we don't know about.  If the government wanted to kill us, they could.  And they wouldn't have to take away our guns to do that.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Obama has better things to do than take away our guns...like you know, fight people who want to take away our heads like Daesh. Why are people so opposed to background checks? Mentally ill people shouldn't possess leathal force. Case closed. And yes, I come from a gun owning family. I'm just trying to be reasonable here. If the Feds wanted to subjugate us, no amount of Rifles would stop them

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

Obama has better things to do than take away our guns...like you know, fight people who want to take away our heads like Daesh. Why are people so opposed to background checks? Mentally ill people shouldn't possess leathal force. Case closed. And yes, I come from a gun owning family. I'm just trying to be reasonable here. If the Feds wanted to subjugate us, no amount of Rifles would stop them

I never understood the opposition to background checks either. Part of me feels it's because of the brainwashing from the NRA and the gun lobby. But in any case, if one is a law biding citizen, they should have no problem passing a background check.

 

Guns are not toys. We've seen many times what happens when they're in the wrong hands. We can't just let everyone get their hands on them. For the record, I'm somewhat pro gun. It's like what Spiderman's Uncle Ben said; "With great power comes great responsibility."

 

Also, one thing we could do as well is try to keep kids out of street life. These kids living in bad areas are poor and probably will turn to gangs/selling drugs/both (gang and drug violence is a majority of gun violence I feel) because they see these gangsters with cash. Give them sports or something to do, so they don't end up in prison or dead because they decided to join a gang or sell drugs. Poverty contributes to crime. It's such a hard thing to tackle, though.

[Smear]

tfw australia

guns dont exist

10/10

[Arctic55]

I agree that the conclusions may be far-fetched, but you cannot deny the thought processes.  Gun restrictions have came before every genocide.  I think people should have the right to bear arms, but like The Red Hood pointed pointed out, "It's like what Spiderman's Uncle Ben said; 'With great power comes great responsibility.'"

 

People should not have an issue getting a background check when buying weapons.  But I don't think the government necessarily needs to keep a list, maybe remove people, who haven't bought a gun, from the list every decade as a compromise (then again, when could we trust our government to do what they say)?

 

The right to own and carry a gun is a big part of American history and culture.  And frankly, it makes a lot of people feel safer.  What we need to figure out, is how to allow people, who have no record or mental signs, to keep their guns, but at the same time, keep it out of the hands of the known psychopaths.  Many of the mass shooters were known to be mentally unstable.  So, why not ban those guys only?

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

I agree that the conclusions may be far-fetched, but you cannot deny the thought processes. Gun restrictions have came before every genocide. I think people should have the right to bear arms, but like The Red Hood pointed pointed out, "It's like what Spiderman's Uncle Ben said; 'With great power comes great responsibility.'"

 

People should not have an issue getting a background check when buying weapons. But I don't think the government necessarily needs to keep a list, maybe remove people, who haven't bought a gun, from the list every decade as a compromise (then again, when could we trust our government to do what they say)?

 

The right to own and carry a gun is a big part of American history and culture. And frankly, it makes a lot of people feel safer. What we need to figure out, is how to allow people, who have no record or mental signs, to keep their guns, but at the same time, keep it out of the hands of the known psychopaths. Many of the mass shooters were known to be mentally unstable. So, why not ban those guys only?

What about people on the terror watch list? Currently, people on the terror watch list can still legally buy guns, and, of course, the NRA oppose any change to that, saying it won't work.

 

Admittedly, it would not have stopped the San Bernardino attack, because neither the suspects nor the friend were on the terror watch list IIRC.

 

I agree that we need to find essentially a balance, because guns aren't something that everyone should have, but at the same time, simply banning them outright wouldn't really work in America.

[Raine]

People are far too reactionary; people kill with gun, take guns. People try to take guns, keep guns. Keeping gun people are terrorist. Taking gun people are fascist. So on. It comes down to one choice, is the world better with more Mexican standoffs? Of coarse, it is! 

[ihop]

I agree that the conclusions may be far-fetched, but you cannot deny the thought processes.  Gun restrictions have came before every genocide.  I think people should have the right to bear arms, but like The Red Hood pointed pointed out, "It's like what Spiderman's Uncle Ben said; 'With great power comes great responsibility.'"

 

You could also look at the vast majority of western countries where gun control has in fact not led to genocide and has led to fewer homocides and a safer society. The countries where there really was genocide were either a long time in the past, where the guns the average man in the street had were about as powerful as the guns being used by the establishment to control the population, or very poor countries where the country didn't have sufficient access to serious weapons. As Nai said, if the US government really wanted to pull off a systematic genocide a bunch of people with guns would be a very small obstacle.

 

The right to own and carry a gun is a big part of American history and culture.  

 

I mean, rights shouldn't be some holy grail that gets in the way of public safety. I'd like to imagine people have the right to fly on a plane without having a naked photo taken of them but apparently there's an all too real risk of planes being blown out of the sky which this mitigates so people aren't as bothered about that. I find these perceived "rights" a dangerous thing anyway. When I was in America my grandparents were telling me of a speed camera in an accident hotspot which was taken down because people complained their rights were being infringed in some way - rights are cool and all but when they start obstructing logical ways to make the population safer they become a problem.

 

 

And frankly, it makes a lot of people feel safer. 

 

On the other hand, many many people feel less safe knowing how many guns are out there and in the hands of unsuitable people. I'm not quite sure what this "having a gun is safer" business is based on as it goes out of the window as soon as you realise everyone else has them too.

 

 

Obama has better things to do than take away our guns...like you know, fight people who want to take away our heads like Daesh. 

 

I don't know the figures but I imagine the proportion of Americans killed by guns compared to the proportion of Americans killed by IS is tens of thousands higher.

[Aerion Brightflame]

 

I never understood the opposition to background checks either. Part of me feels it's because of the brainwashing from the NRA and the gun lobby. But in any case, if one is a law biding citizen, they should have no problem passing a background check.
 

 

The NRA are fine with background checks at conventions as far as I am aware. Which is pretty amusing, because such proposals get shut down in Congress because Congress refuses to compromise with Obama. It's kinda funny. 

 

I don't know the figures but I imagine the proportion of Americans killed by guns compared to the proportion of Americans killed by IS is tens of thousands higher.

 

71 Americains have died due to terrorism in the last decade, add in 2,977 deaths im 9/11 say. More people in Americain die to gun-related suicide in a year than have died to Terrorism in 15. (It's like 40,000 a year or something)

 

If we look at total deaths due to gunfire it's 301,797 deaths in the past decade. That's essentially 10,000 times more in the past decade for guns than the past 15 for terrorism. 

 

In reality, terrorism is such a minor threat to the Western World at this stage. They are unlikely to ever threaten the nations they target on a truly threatening scale because of the relative size and military spending does. What terrorism does do however is provide a big scapegoat to infringe on civil rights for the sake of security, when really it's unneeded. 

 

Source for these numbers was http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/05/viral-image/fact-checking-comparison-gun-deaths-and-terrorism-/It's not a great source, but it decent enough. 

 

So really I feel the idea that domestic issues come second to terrorism in terms of what is more threatening is really blowing the idea out of proportion. 

[Arctic55]

Another thing is, it also boils down to the second amendment.  Why was the second amendment created?  It was created in response to what the colonies considered a "tyrannical" government.  The idea was that the people could defend themselves in the UNLIKELY EVENT of a tyrannical government (and terrorism as it arose in future decades).

 

This was a fundamental amendment the founding fathers create out of fear of the historical consistency of large governments eventually becoming tyrannical.  You have to remember, just because American is not Socialist Russia or Nazi Germany, doesn't mean it can't become one.  America is a young country and could become one of these tyrannical governments given enough time and negative leadership.  Just like Hitler and Stalin didn't create their empires in a day, neither will the transformation of the world's greatest sentinel of freedom.

 

Responses to phil below

 

"You could also look at the vast majority of western countries where gun control has in fact not led to genocide and has led to fewer homocides and a safer society. The countries where there really was genocide were either a long time in the past, where the guns the average man in the street had were about as powerful as the guns being used by the establishment to control the population, or very poor countries where the country didn't have sufficient access to serious weapons. As Nai said, if the US government really wanted to pull off a systematic genocide a bunch of people with guns would be a very small obstacle."

 

Good Point.  But at least the people can somewhat resist, and if the government was truly tyrannical, I think a lot of the military would join the people, rather than shoot on their own family and friends.  Robert E. Lee put it this way, and I paraphrase "I am loyal to my country and my family, but when faced with a choice, I choose my family."  This isn't a country where people are brainwashed to do everything their commanding officer says without question.  Military personal mostly have a working (sometimes partially) conscious.

 

"I mean, rights shouldn't be some holy grail that gets in the way of public safety. I'd like to imagine people have the right to fly on a plane without having a naked photo taken of them but apparently there's an all too real risk of planes being blown out of the sky which this mitigates so people aren't as bothered about that. I find these perceived "rights" a dangerous thing anyway. When I was in America my grandparents were telling me of a speed camera in an accident hotspot which was taken down because people complained their rights were being infringed in some way - rights are cool and all but when they start obstructing logical ways to make the population safer they become a problem."

 

I agree, rights should not be a holy grail.  Quick note on the plane thing, the tsa security is a sham:

http://mic.com/articles/119868/undercover-tsa-investigation-finds-96-of-fake-weapons-got-through-airport-security#.13vifIjnr

http://www.businessinsider.com/tsa-failed-to-detect-mock-explosives-and-weapons-95-of-the-time-during-airport-security-tests-2015-6

 

"On the other hand, many many people feel less safe knowing how many guns are out there and in the hands of unsuitable people. I'm not quite sure what this "having a gun is safer" business is based on as it goes out of the window as soon as you realise everyone else has them too."

 

Here is the scenario:

Carry guns banned- mass shooter goes into gun-free school area.  Nobody can stop him until police arrive.  Lots of people die or are injured.

Carry guns allowed- mass shooter goes into school area and starts shooting.  Security guard or person passing school sees what's going on and shoots the mass shooter and stops him.  Less people die.

 

Repeat scenario in any place.  The Joker Shooter might have been stopped, if someone could have shot back.

 

"I don't know the figures but I imagine the proportion of Americans killed by guns compared to the proportion of Americans killed by IS is tens of thousands higher."

 

I believe this is mostly because of criminal violence, and suicides.  The highest criminal violence cities in America also have the most strict gun laws... *cough couch, Chicago, couch couch*.  Suicidal people use guns because it is the quickest and easiest way to kill yourself, but they could just as easily use a knife, noose, or heck, they could even drop a big rock on their head.  In conclusion, guns are not the issue, the issue is the people who use them.  The real question is, what is the country doing wrong that makes so many suicidal, criminal, or psychotic people?

 

 

Personal afterthoughts
Also, a large portion of gun violence is crime related.  So even if we did ban guns, would that really stop CRIMINALs from using guns?  I mean, heck, if anyone was fighting against the cops, they are gonna use the biggest, baddest weapon they can find to ensure the cops don't get them.  All banning guns does is disarm the common people so they are easier targets for the criminals.  If you were planning to rob one of two houses that always have people in them, would you rob the house that you know has no guns, or the one you know has guns?  The logical choice is the house without guns.  Why?  Because it is harder for them to resist.

 

Now all I'm trying to do is look at this logically, and to me, it just makes more logical sense to allow people to have guns.  But I agree, we do have an issue in America with gun abuse.  But would banning guns really solve the problem?  No, because if they could get rid of all guns, people would use something else.  The problem here is the people.  We seem to be treating the symptom, but ignoring the disease.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Here is the scenario:

Carry guns banned- mass shooter goes into gun-free school area.  Nobody can stop him until police arrive.  Lots of people die or are injured.

Carry guns allowed- mass shooter goes into school area and starts shooting.  Security guard or person passing school sees what's going on and shoots the mass shooter and stops him.  Less people die.

 

Repeat scenario in any place.  The Joker Shooter might have been stopped, if someone could have shot back.

 

I don't know why you think the average citizen would reliably be able to stop an armed gunman in a situation like this. Hitting a moving target, that is firing at you, whilst there is probably a crowd around, and you are in an immensely high stress situation is very, very hard. You are more likely going to make things worse and catch someone in the crossfire. 

 

There's a reason that trained squads of officers exist to deal with these sorts of situations, because it's a situation that demands training to respond to, not some random person strolling up trying to be a hero. Because most people have, and will never fire a gun in a high stress situation, so they cannot be held upon to be a reliable responder. 

 

Plus you miss the obvious here; If guns are not easy to access, this kinds of situations rarely happen so you don't need people armed as a safeguad, as you can witness in basically every other country in the Western World. Admittedly even ones without tight gun restrictions have less mass shootings than the US, but it's still worth nothing. You can't hold a group of people at bay with a knife as easily as you can with a gun, nor can you easily kill large groups of people with a knife over a gun. 

 

 

 

I believe this is mostly because of criminal violence, and suicides.  The highest criminal violence cities in America also have the most strict gun laws... *cough couch, Chicago, couch couch*.  Suicidal people use guns because it is the quickest and easiest way to kill yourself, but they could just as easily use a knife, noose, or heck, they could even drop a big rock on their head.  In conclusion, guns are not the issue, the issue is the people who use them.  The real question is, what is the country doing wrong that makes so many suicidal, criminal, or psychotic people?

 

61% of gun deaths in the US are suicides. I also refute the idea that they could 'just as easily' use X method. You can't just as easily use other methods, the other methods either a) Are slow to kill you (Poison, cutting your wrists, even hanging), increase the odds that you can change you mind in the act, which is a common occurrence in suicide attempts, or require a lot of effort on the victims part. Which again increases the odds they change there mind. With a gun, there's no second chance when the trigger goes off, it requires little force or effort, it is as easy as it gets when it comes to suicides.

 

Oh and the fact about Criminal violence is ignoring the part where neightbouring regions have significantly lower gun restrictions, which is kind of a shot in the leg when it comes to making a difference. 

 

I also think that there's a statistic that guns are more likely to be used against the occupants of a house than against intruders (In terms of them breaking in and getting your own gun to use). Hell, personally I don't see the need to want to have guns in place for a home invasion - The last thing I want to think about then is escalating the situation by involving firearms. The thieves and such are there for your belongings, not your life. 

 

Now on the issue of it being 'logical' to arm a country, that always something that different sides here will disagree with, because a lot of us are from nations where Guns simply aren't around. In Britain we almost never see firearms, we aren't used to them, the idea of being surrounded by them is terrifying frankly. It's a massive societal difference that makes this argument harder than it should be. Because we are trying to justify how excessive guns seem to us to a society where it is almost a core facet. Because we aren't from a society where guns are common place, we don't feel like we need firearms to defend ourselves, which is again a relatively hard concept to grasp. 

 

 

Now basic restrictions like background checks are fine because you have issues with that, and the NRA are fine to have them in place, but to me, guns existing in any Western society to the extent they do in the US is terrifying and alien, and always will be. I accept the Americain viewpoint is very different to that, but it's how a lot of people here feel, especially when we see stuff about how you had essentially as many mass shootings as days in the year last year. Because we don't have guns, we see it all as needless, tragic deaths that could be avoided by not having firearms. Admittedly you'll still be a more violent society than us, because you quite frankly do have a violence problem across multiple aspects of life. 

 

It's just a weird discussion to have because of such contrasting upbringings in otherwise similar nations. 

[Arctic55]

"I don't know why you think the average citizen would reliably be able to stop an armed gunman in a situation like this."

 

In theory, it's better than having a completely easy victim for the mass shooter in question.  If the "hero" owns a gun, chances are they practice shooting, and then chances are they can stop the mass shooter before cops arrive and lower the casualty count.

 

"61% of gun deaths in the US are suicides."

 

I have heard personal recounts of people who were planning to commit suicide with guns, but they couldn't bring themselves to pull the trigger.  There is time to stop, from trying to acquire the gun, to arming the gun, to aiming the gun, to pulling the trigger, all of which give time to rethink or stop from committing suicide.  This just shows that there is an undercurrent problem that is causing people to commit suicide that needs to be addressed.

 

Some tv show episodes are about how the hero's friend does something drastic almost ending in someone's death, just to prove him/herself.  The hero's friend had an undercurrent issue, the weapon or device is not at fault.  Normally the story ends with the hero admitting some sort of flaw and making amends with his/her friend.  This is a classic example how there was an undercurrent issue.  Just like with suicide gun deaths, there is a undercurrent issue bringing people to the point of suicide that needs to be addressed.  If these undercurrent issues were solved, presumably, 61% of American gun deaths would vanish.  Or is my logic off?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

What about us Hunters Tom? Or people like me who don't even enjoy hunting but just sharpshooting? Should we really be persecuted for the actions of a few mentally deranged? If people really cared about the damage guns do to our society, they should improve mental health (for both Homicide and Suicide) not pointlessly try to get assault weapons banned when most crimes aren't even done by them. 

 

I can't get behind "gun control" when the side supporting it clearly doesn't give a flying funk about the people

 

 

 

I don't know the figures but I imagine the proportion of Americans killed by guns compared to the proportion of Americans killed by IS is tens of thousands higher.

 

You misunderstood my point. I was suggesting that Obama and the Feds had bigger problems to worry about rather than trying to steal our guns. One of which is the charisma that Daesh is exemplifying in it's cause. I was not trying to suggest that Daesh has killed more individuals than guns. Though if they can really manage the powergrid lock that people say they could, then that could change very soon

[Aerion Brightflame]

[spoiler=long reply'']

"I don't know why you think the average citizen would reliably be able to stop an armed gunman in a situation like this."

 

In theory, it's better than having a completely easy victim for the mass shooter in question.  If the "hero" owns a gun, chances are they practice shooting, and then chances are they can stop the mass shooter before cops arrive and lower the casualty count.

 

Shooting on a range is not the same as one of these situations. 

 

Let's break it down, say in a shopping mall, man's opening fire at a crowd you are in with an automatic weapon of some kind. Reasonable situation right? Let's be nice and say he doesn't have any body armour. 

 

You are surrounded by screaming, dying, terrified people probably running for there lives, knocking into you, getting in your line of fire ect ect. Your 'Fight or Flight' reflexes have kicked in, your heart rate will be pumping, you'll be sweating buckets, you've probably got trousers stained with some kind of bodily excrement, and you will be shaking, and probably covered in blood.

 

So say you draw your weapon in spite of this, you don't drop it, or get it knocked out of your hand, or get shot in the mean time, and you level a shot; The target isn't going to be a stationary target in a controlled setting. He will be moving, firing. People around you will be moving, and screaming and running a dying. Do you think you'll be able to get a clear shot? An honestly clear shot, despite your shaking hands, despite the chaos and noise around you, despite the world falling to pieces around you. Do you think it's reasonable that someone whose never been in a situation like this will get a clear shot in a reasonable time before the gunner turns on him? 

 

Do you know what I think will happen? You'll take a shot, and some innocent will take the bullet instead most of the time. And instead of solving the situation, you will have made it worse, and made yourself a target instead. 

 

SWAT teams have months of training to deal with situations like this, to deal with the chaos, and beat back your bodily instincts of fight or flight. There is a reason they are specialist teams to deal with situations, because these situations require a precise hand to stop. Maybe one in a hundred times, or one in a thousand times, some lucky soul will save some lives, but I'd rather not risk any more lives in an already awful, awful situation. 

 

"I don't know why you think the average citizen would reliably be able to stop an armed gunman in a situation like this."

 

In theory, it's better than having a completely easy victim for the mass shooter in question.  If the "hero" owns a gun, chances are they practice shooting, and then chances are they can stop the mass shooter before cops arrive and lower the casualty count.

 

"61% of gun deaths in the US are suicides."

 

I have heard personal recounts of people who were planning to commit suicide with guns, but they couldn't bring themselves to pull the trigger.  There is time to stop, from trying to acquire the gun, to arming the gun, to aiming the gun, to pulling the trigger, all of which give time to rethink or stop from committing suicide.  This just shows that there is an undercurrent problem that is causing people to commit suicide that needs to be addressed.

 

Some tv show episodes are about how the hero's friend does something drastic almost ending in someone's death, just to prove him/herself.  The hero's friend had an undercurrent issue, the weapon or device is not at fault.  Normally the story ends with the hero admitting some sort of flaw and making amends with his/her friend.  This is a classic example how there was an undercurrent issue.  Just like with suicide gun deaths, there is a undercurrent issue bringing people to the point of suicide that needs to be addressed.  If these undercurrent issues were solved, presumably, 61% of American gun deaths would vanish.  Or is my logic off?

 

And I still maintain all the other methods allow a significantly greater period of time to change there mind. Because all of them have the same kind of build-up, but guns take things entirely out of your hands after the trigger is pulled. Slitting your wrists and taking some kind of poison do. The only method that doesn't have tht same levity after it's enacted is jumping, but people who survive do frequently express the idea that suddenly all the issues in life seemed solveable. 

 

Technically lumping all these suicides in together under the umbrella 'mental health' is incorrect; This includes accidents, peoples guns going off by mistake, children messing around with guns and killing themselves by mistake ect ect. Which are technically easily solvable if you instil the idea that a gun is a deadly weapon and must be treated as such into society, which gets forgotten nowadays. 

 

Now personally I think the issue of suicide stretches much further than just mental health, it's linked into a lot of stuff; Poverty and gender issues being the two big other ones, which also makes logical statements like the ones you are trying to make extremely hard to make. Like all of this stuff, especially violence, there are a lot of factors in place. But again, my personal standpoint on the issue that guns are inherently unnecessary and that removing them will benefit a society because it's part of my upbringing and being part of a society where adding guns won't improve things at all. 

 

 

What about us Hunters Tom? Or people like me who don't even enjoy hunting but just sharpshooting? Should we really be persecuted for the actions of a few mentally deranged? If people really cared about the damage guns do to our society, they should improve mental health (for both Homicide and Suicide) not pointlessly try to get assault weapons banned when most crimes aren't even done by them. 

 

I can't get behind "gun control" when the side supporting it clearly doesn't give a flying f*** about the people

 

As I've said before, Hunting and purely recrational shooting is fine, but at the cost of the guns being incredibly hard to get access to. In Britain, you can obtain firearms, but it's a very lengthy process, which means you hardly see it. If you want to shoot at a range, you should rent a gun from a range, you don't need to own one there. 

 

Now again, my view is that there is no real societal or even cultural benefit to having widespread firearm access, so saying 'Think of the people' isn't an argument that appeals to me. When I think of the people, I think of people who die to firearms, not the people who own them without using them for murder. 

 

I also would disagree that someones past time should ever outweigh lives when it comes down to a choice, so if it was a direct choice I would get rid of every last gun not in the hands of the military in your country regardless of people using them for peaceful pastimes.

 

That is of course my personal opinion on that last part, not an argument.

 

 

 

 

EDIT; The actual easiest way to phrase it is such; 

 

Other people in this thread make the argument 'Why should we remove guns instead of deal with underlying problems', which is a perfectly fine question to be arguing, it makes sense given the environment you are from. But that is never going to be the question that I'm technically arguing in these kinds of discussion; I'm arguing 'Why do you need the guns in the first place?' - Or rather, instead of 'tell me what good removing guns will do', it's 'tell me what good HAVING guns does'. 

 

Again, contrasting upbringings means as much as I do understand the viewpoints people put forwards, I will always have this ideological difference to your attitudes about guns. 

[Arctic55]

if it was a direct choice I would get rid of every last gun not in the hands of the military in your country regardless of people using them for peaceful pastimes.

 

That is of course my personal opinion on that last part, not an argument.

TIME OUT *screen goes gray as both sides of the debate freeze, kinda Deadpool style*  That is your personal opinion, and I respect that.  But, as I was discussing with some people the other day, it is extreme opinions like this on the anti-gun side, and the extreme opinions of the pro-gun side that will make it impossible for a compromise.

 

I hope none of you actually got angry over this debate, it was intended to be an area to exercise a healthy debate and see both sides of the spectrum.  *debate resumes*  TIME IN

[Aerion Brightflame]

TIME OUT *screen goes gray as both sides of the debate freeze, kinda Deadpool style*  That is your personal opinion, and I respect that.  But, as I was discussing with some people the other day, it is extreme opinions like this on the anti-gun side, and the extreme opinions of the pro-gun side that will make it impossible for a compromise.

 

I hope none of you actually got angry over this debate, it was intended to be an area to exercise a healthy debate and see both sides of the spectrum.  *debate resumes*  TIME IN

 

My opinion being 'extreme' (In your society this is an extreme view, in mine it is not. Again, you have to remember we are approaching this discussion with very different root ideologies) doesn't mean I wouldn't acknowledge compromise. 

 

I've already said 'Background checks at conventions' are good, they are even something that the NRA is in favour. I acknowledge mental health improvements would make a significant difference, and that teaching people to respect guns as weapons is an important step that has to be reinforced. And I even accept that guns do have recreational usages, and that you can put restrictions in place to allow those happen whilst still doing that fulfilling the restriction can exist (Again the UK, guns aren't banned here, they are just a bugger to get). 

 

But because I am from a society entirely without firearms, again the American views towards them are alien to me. If I seem extreme to you, you guys seem relatively extreme to me, despite the fact I can rationalise why your society is the way it is, because it's a place where things are widely different. None of us are actually extreme people on the issue, it's just different ideologies make it seem so. 

 

So before you take a TIME OUT to address extremism, remember the circumstances of whom you are talking to and the society I am from, and you'll understand I'm not being extreme about the issue. Just as I try to do for you guys in these discussions. 

 

And nobody is getting angry about this as far as I can tell, it's just passion because it is a topic of important discussion, even to Brits given how frequently we see news of your gun violence. 

[Arctic55]

"I've already said 'Background checks at conventions' are good, they are even something that the NRA is in favour. I acknowledge mental health improvements would make a significant difference, and that teaching people to respect guns as weapons is an important step that has to be reinforced. And I even accept that guns do have recreational usages, and that you can put restrictions in place to allow those happen whilst still doing that job can exist."

 

*claps*  This guy, is much easier to talk to, than a lot of people I know who want to outright ban guns.  He actually likes compromise.  Respect.  *claps*  Would you take a job as head of the anti-gun committee?

 

"But because I am from a society entirely without firearms, again the American views towards them are alien to me. If I seem extreme to you, you guys seem relatively extreme to me, despite the fact I can rationalise why your society is the way it is, because it's a place where things are widely different. None of us are actually extreme people on the issue, it's just different ideologies make it seem so."

 

Fair enough.

 

"And nobody is getting angry about this as far as I can tell, it's just passion because it is a topic of important discussion, even to Brits given how frequently we see news of your gun violence."

 

Good to hear.  I wasn't worried... much...  :)

 

All in all, I'm glad that this place seems safe to share and bounce opinions, ideas, and arguments.  Time to pack these arguments for my Speech and Debate club (joking, I'm not actually part of Speech and Debate).

[vla1ne]

Not taking any sides here, but:

 

America is a very large country, unlike many of the other countries that have banned guns, we are neither isolated, nor are we small enough to monitor enough places at a time to keep guns out of the hands of everybody in this country who truly wants one. then comes the problem of how? millions of people in this country, law abiding citizens own guns, there are even honest people who make a living selling guns in this country. how do you ban guns in such a way that removes the guns that these people legally bought? many of them might be law abiding, but asking them to give up their guns at this point would be like asking them to throw away something that they've held close for sometimes generations. the father that hunts with his kids as bonding, the guy that heads to the shooting range (which would likely shut down as well) just to bow off some steam, all of these people, and is there anybody who could come up with an effective measure to do so? and let's talk money, how many people here know how expensive guns can be, the taxes on a gun and bullets are probably (i may be wrong here, but devils advocate) comparable to cigarettes in the states where open carry is legal. and even more money, how much would it cost to keep guns out of the hands of citizens that want them in america, law abiding or not? we all see the effect the "war" on drugs has on our tax dollars, and there are still people who would argue to ban guns in america? good luck paying the debt when we continue blowing money on things we don't need.

 

As for the other side, why would anybody be against universal background checks and follow ups? the arguments "it won't solve the problem" or "it's invading out freedom" are both worthless in the larger view, everybody knows it won't eradicate the problem, but there is no single solution that would solve it in one fell swoop. and if you are a law abiding citizen, or at least provably sane, there's no real reason that you could be blocked from buying a gun. if you're a convict, you might just have to go without (then again, see the above point) so why is anybody, including congress against it. congress has made multiple blocks against obama, even when he has had some good ideas, for fear that agreeing with them would hurt their own run for office. the argument should not be against reasonable gun control, it should be against unreasonable restrictions of guns when there is no need to.
 

 

As for the video, it's fear mongering at it's best. yes, gun control has been used in the past when tyrants rose to power, but it is also necessary if you wish to decrease the overall amount of gun violence initiated by non-law abiding citizens. nobody is thinking of others when they make knee-jerk reactions to gun control, as i am convinced this video has. it is perfectly fine to allow innocent people to hold guns, but it is not ok that people attempt to frame reasonable restriction in the same light as communist russia, nazi germany, or china,

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The problem is the left is shooting itself in the foot by going after Assault weapons and not focusing on UBC. When you go after an element that has such a minor impact on shooting (ie. Newtown Shooter left his assault weapon in the car)...your whole argument is weakened. There's very few people who wouldn't oppose UBC's, but then you throw in the fact that people like Hillary (despite intention) say things “I think it would be worth considering doing [copying Australia's Gun Laws] on the national level if that could be arranged.”

 

When you say things like that, even if you didn't mean it, you're gonna scare people like me from law abiding gun owning families and give the NRA substance. Stop shooting yourself

[vla1ne]

When you say things like that, even if you didn't mean it, you're gonna scare people like me from law abiding gun owning families and give the NRA substance. Stop shooting yourself

So wee need gun laws to save the feet of democracy?

 

To those who take offense, i am a democrat.

[Arctic55]

So wee need gun laws to save the feet of democracy?

 

To those who take offense, i am a democrat.

I think What Necromancer is saying, is that the arguement sort of defeats itself in the eyes of the citizens who are responsible gun owners.

[vla1ne]

I think What Necromancer is saying, is that the arguement sort of defeats itself in the eyes of the citizens who are responsible gun owners.

I know, I just wanted to make a foot joke...