Gun Control: Is this a real fix?

[JosephTheMainMan]

The topic of Gun Control has been everywhere in the past few years.
After the many shootings and lives lost by fools using these weapons.

However, some argue that the guns are not the problem.
And that the problem is really the bad people who use the firearms.

And another side says that none of the bad stuff would have happened if those bad people were never able to get firearms anyway.

So what is the real fix to gun violence ?
Personally, I believe that gun control isn't what America needs.
Americans have the right to bear arms to defend themselves from other people and tyranny. That is the whole point of the amendment.

It isn't right to give up your right solely because some other human misused that right and caused harm to other people. Otherwise that implies that more of your rights can be taken away simply because other people abuse those same rights.

Comment your opinions.

 

[Inkandtatts]

It isn't right to give up your right solely because some other human misused that right and caused harm to other people. Otherwise that implies that more of your rights can be taken away simply because other people abuse those same rights.

Comment your opinions.

The same could be said for nukes. Let everyone who can make or procure them have nukes.

There's no arguing with the fact that, if the guns didn't exist (or weren't allowed), people wouldn't get shot.

Americans have the right to bear arms to defend themselves from other people and tyranny.

That's not quite right. 2A says this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Underlined part: Private individuals owning guns for "protection" or whatever else isn't a Militia even if you look at the historical definition that only applies to "able bodied citizens eligible to be called up" They also aren't very well-regulated
Bold part: Private individuals owning guns aren't necessary to the security of a free State. That's what the military is for.

It's essentially a right to defend against invasion. Not likely in 2023.


Also:

View attachment 962453

^^ "Mass shooting" is defined as 4+ deaths in an incident

By comparison in the UK, where gun ownership is almost non-existent, there have been 2 mass shootings in the same period.

Even looking at mass shootings as a % of population:

UK: 0.0000033%

US: 0.0014%

And that the problem is really the bad people who use the firearms.

If it's the people that are the problem more than the guns then the US has a higher % of people inclined to commit mass shootings than those in the UK. The solution might be mental health support but it's not easy to predict who is going to become a mass shooter so it seems sensible to either take away the guns or have much tighter regulation.

If someone would take the bold decision to stop the NRA from crossing politicians' hands with silver then there might be a sensible discussion about the issue but until that happens there's zero chance said politicians are going to go against what their paymasters want

Personally, I believe that gun control isn't what America needs.

So, to solve the issue of gun violence and mass shootings, what do you believe America needs?

 

[SouporMan]

The same could be said for nukes. Let everyone who can make or procure them have nukes.

There's no arguing with the fact that, if the guns didn't exist (or weren't allowed), people wouldn't get shot.


That's not quite right. 2A says this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Underlined part: Private individuals owning guns for "protection" or whatever else isn't a Militia even if you look at the historical definition that only applies to "able bodied citizens eligible to be called up" They also aren't very well-regulated
Bold part: Private individuals owning guns aren't necessary to the security of a free State. That's what the military is for.

It's essentially a right to defend against invasion. Not likely in 2023.


Also:

View attachment 962453

^^ "Mass shooting" is defined as 4+ deaths in an incident

By comparison in the UK, where gun ownership is almost non-existent, there have been 2 mass shootings in the same period.

Even looking at mass shootings as a % of population:

UK: 0.0000033%

US: 0.0014%



If it's the people that are the problem more than the guns then the US has a higher % of people inclined to commit mass shootings than those in the UK. The solution might be mental health support but it's not easy to predict who is going to become a mass shooter so it seems sensible to either take away the guns or have much tighter regulation.

If someone would take the bold decision to stop the NRA from crossing politicians' hands with silver then there might be a sensible discussion about the issue but until that happens there's zero chance said politicians are going to go against what their paymasters want


So, to solve the issue of gun violence and mass shootings, what do you believe America needs?

Just a friendly debater here Ink, all love here, but I thought I would touch on the topic...

I would be interested in seeing those statistics and see other types of violence in comparison, such as knife violence.

I can't argue the matter of shootings in the US, it is very apparent that gun violence diminishes without guns, but I am more afraid of a Tyrannical govt. Those on the right side might agree looking at Biden, and those on the left might agree looking at Trump. Things have been particularly bad in the last few years as political polarization seems to continue to grow. I am not saying that the US should have some sort of Civil war, not do I identify with either side, but I will say it does hold a hand in our checks and balances of the system.

I would have to disagree Tats, invasion is more likely than we think. Internally everyone is angry, and externally we are one of the most hated countries, and we haven't had a war on our soil in a long time.

 

[Inkandtatts]

Stabbing deaths as a % of population according to https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/stabbing-deaths-by-country are:

UK: 0.00008%
US: 0.0006%

As screwed up as our country is I don’t think we’re at threat of a tyrannical Government so I can’t really relate to that.

Regarding war or invasion I’d say air strikes or nukes are more likely than a ground invasion

Better/tighter regulation of guns and those who can own them would make a huge difference, I’m sure

 

[Icarium]

The topic of Gun Control has been everywhere in the past few years.

Just a little comment. The 'everywhere' you mention should be limited to the United States of America. We really don't have this issue in the Netherlands. Or Europe for that matter.

 

[emileh]

I'm not against the ownership of guns for a clearly defined purpose. However, there is a need for stricter licensing laws in the USA.

Before a licence is issued they need to check for purpose, check with the applicant's doctor for health and mental health status, limit the amount of ammunition held and make that a condition of the licence, require the use of a locking gun cabinet with a separate key for access to ammunition, get the applicant to get two responsible referees to support the application and do home checks for security.

Any automatic or semi automatic weapons should be banned outright. Holding specialised ammunition should be subject to licence conditions.

Keys to the secure cabinet must only be held by the licence holder. No other person must be able to get access to them or the weapons and ammunition.

The applicant should be questioned to check their knowledge of and approach to gun safety, their knowledge of ammunition velocities and ranges and understanding backstops and when it is safe to shoot and when it isn't. Membership of a suitable club where the weapons are held until the applicant is considered safe to own and use them should be mandated where necessary.

Any breach of licence conditions should be investigated properly and if necessary, weapons removed and licence suspended.

Sales of firearms including private sales should be to licensed individuals only and sales must be noted on both licenses and the licensing officers notified.

Those are the UK licensing laws, they're tough but they don't prevent the legitimate ownership of guns to responsible people.

I know this because I know people that legitimately hunt including family members.

America needs to consider strict licencing but it won't because the gun and ammunition manufacturers are a powerful political lobby.

 

[-Luka]

As screwed up as our country is I don’t think we’re at threat of a tyrannical Government so I can’t really relate to that.

!

 

[JosephTheMainMan]

!

Although a tyrannical government may seem unlikely.
There is a big chance that it could happen.

Corruption is everywhere.
It only takes a while for it to spread like a poison.

 

[-Luka]

Although a tyrannical government may seem unlikely.
There is a big chance that it could happen.

Corruption is everywhere.
It only takes a while for it to spread like a poison.

yes I’m aware thank you

 

[JosephTheMainMan]

I'm not against the ownership of guns for a clearly defined purpose. However, there is a need for stricter licensing laws in the USA.

Before a licence is issued they need to check for purpose, check with the applicant's doctor for health and mental health status, limit the amount of ammunition held and make that a condition of the licence, require the use of a locking gun cabinet with a separate key for access to ammunition, get the applicant to get two responsible referees to support the application and do home checks for security.

Any automatic or semi automatic weapons should be banned outright. Holding specialised ammunition should be subject to licence conditions.

Keys to the secure cabinet must only be held by the licence holder. No other person must be able to get access to them or the weapons and ammunition.

The applicant should be questioned to check their knowledge of and approach to gun safety, their knowledge of ammunition velocities and ranges and understanding backstops and when it is safe to shoot and when it isn't. Membership of a suitable club where the weapons are held until the applicant is considered safe to own and use them should be mandated where necessary.

Any breach of licence conditions should be investigated properly and if necessary, weapons removed and licence suspended.

Sales of firearms including private sales should be to licensed individuals only and sales must be noted on both licenses and the licensing officers notified.

Those are the UK licensing laws, they're tough but they don't prevent the legitimate ownership of guns to responsible people.

I know this because I know people that legitimately hunt including family members.

America needs to consider strict licencing but it won't because the gun and ammunition manufacturers are a powerful political lobby.

Good take.
However, it may be a bit unfair to outright ban automatics. Although they may seem overkill as they do the exact same things as a handgun, they are just as dangerous.

FBI - Homicide Data Table
Statistics show from the FBI that handguns are more likely to be used in homicides. Far more than rifles or shotguns. So realistically banning assault rifles and automatics would make a very small change.

(Am I getting better at debating?! 😀)

 

[emileh]

Nobody other than the military needs a true automatic weapon. Nobody using a gun for a legitimate purpose (hunting or target shooting for example) needs a semi automatic, they're also a military weapon. For legitimate use a gun that requires manual reloading is all that is required. The same should apply to pistols where they're legal. Aside of official use semi automatic weapons have no place in society. Personally I think that the UK got it right with handguns.

I'll go a stage further. No citizen needs the right to carry a concealed weapon, an open carried weapon (unless it's unloaded and being carried to a place of lawful use, e.g. a range, an area of land where hunting is allowed, etc). No citizen needs to carry a loaded weapon unless it's in a place of lawful use.

 

[Deleted member 303204]

I believe that Gun control needs a serious update.
First, we must close the online sales loophole. The internet was in its infancy when Congress passed the Brady Bill. Now, online shopping has drastically changed how Americans buy and sell products. Today, unlicensed dealers sell guns online unregulated and unchecked. If we are to make progress in ending gun violence, we need gun laws that address this reality.

 

[JosephTheMainMan]

Nobody other than the military needs a true automatic weapon. Nobody using a gun for a legitimate purpose (hunting or target shooting for example) needs a semi automatic, they're also a military weapon. For legitimate use a gun that requires manual reloading is all that is required. The same should apply to pistols where they're legal. Aside of official use semi automatic weapons have no place in society. Personally I think that the UK got it right with handguns.

I'll go a stage further. No citizen needs the right to carry a concealed weapon, an open carried weapon (unless it's unloaded and being carried to a place of lawful use, e.g. a range, an area of land where hunting is allowed, etc). No citizen needs to carry a loaded weapon unless it's in a place of lawful use.

Aren't pistols be considered semi automatic ?
1 bullet per trigger press... ?

Or are you talking about bolt actions?

 

[emileh]

Yes some pistols are. Nobody needs a pistol though apart from police and military and a few vets for humane purposes.

 

[Bread.]

Yes some pistols are. Nobody needs a pistol though apart from police and military and a few vets for humane purposes.

Yep nobody needs a pistol because we can count on police to go in and stop an active shooter murdering innocent children left and right for over an hour with all that "military equipment".

Just like they did in Uvalde.

Uvalde Police calmly using hand sanitizer as they hear children being shot in the distance.

Uvalde Police casually checking their phone as they hear children being shot in the distance.

Police whom the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they have ZERO obligation to protect you or you family.

Deshaney v. Winnebago

As was also recently upheld in US court of appeals in ....

Another school shooting.. (parkland).

So rather than "hope" the police will protect you...

Or try to protect yourself with stick and stones against a gun, knife, half ton vehicle or anything that can be used to cause grave bodily injury and/or death..

You can protect yourself against such threats with a gun. Wether that be a lunatic citizen..or a tyrannical government

Yes some pistols are. Nobody needs a pistol though apart from police and military and a few vets for humane purposes.

P.S.

Veterinarians don't need or use guns to euthanize animals. They have sedatives and drugs to kill most pets and captive animals. Most livestock is also killed via stunning and use of a captive bolt (not a gun).

The only people that need guns to kill animals are hunters

 

[emileh]

Yep nobody needs a pistol because we can count on police to go in and stop an active shooter murdering innocent children left and right for over an hour with all that "military equipment".

Just like they did in Uvalde.

Uvalde Police calmly using hand sanitizer as they hear children being shot in the distance.

Uvalde Police casually checking their phone as they hear children being shot in the distance.

Police whom the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they have ZERO obligation to protect you or you family.

Deshaney v. Winnebago

As was also recently upheld in US court of appeals in ....

Another school shooting.. (parkland).

So rather than "hope" the police will protect you...

Or try to protect yourself with stick and stones against a gun, knife, half ton vehicle or anything that can be used to cause grave bodily injury and/or death..

You can protect yourself against such threats with a gun. Wether that be a lunatic citizen..or a tyrannical government

Maybe next time don't use a country with a vastly different history than the United States to support an argument about American gun law reform.


P.S.

Veterinarians don't need or use guns to euthanize animals. They have sedatives and drugs to kill most pets and captive animals. Most livestock is also killed via stunning and use of a captive bolt (not a gun).

The only people that need guns to kill animals are hunters

Yes because people carrying guns has prevented so many mass shootings hasn't it.

Also you're talking nonsense about vets not needing pistols for humane dispatch. They're used to dispatch large animals that have been hit by cars and trucks. Most highland large animal vets can legally carry them.

 

[Inkandtatts]

You can protect yourself against such threats with a gun. Wether that be a lunatic citizen..or a tyrannical government

Take the guns away = no need to protect yourself against someone with a gun

 

[Bread.]

Yes because people carrying guns has prevented so many mass shootings hasn't it.

Also you're talking nonsense about vets not needing pistols for humane dispatch. They're used to dispatch large animals that have been hit by cars and trucks. Most highland large animal vets can legally carry them.

Armed citizens do not use their guns to "prevent" mass shooters. It is it illogical to think that an ordinary citizen can "prevent" a mass shooting, when the would be shooter has not brandished or shot a weapon.

The only way to prevent it is to have intelligence on said threats, much like counter terrorism.

Law abiding citizens who shoot their guns are reacting to a threat. Not preventing it.

In what magical world do you live in where you think stopping an active shooter at the earliest convenience is not 110% beneficial to everyone?

Every active shooter/mass shooting that has been stopped by an ordinary citizen has undoubtedly saved the lives of other would-be innocent victims.

That number is over 30% of all active shootings between 2014 and 2021. And over 50% of all active shootings in 2021 alone.

pic related:
Scene from 4 hours ago in Prague.
10-15 dead, dozens injured.

I don't suppose you could imagine what would have happened if there was an ordinary citizen shooting back at the gunman... Perhaps 10-15 people would still be alive

 

[emileh]

Armed citizens do not use their guns to "prevent" mass shooters. It is it illogical to think that an ordinary citizen can "prevent" a mass shooting, when the would be shooter has not brandished or shot a weapon.

The only way to prevent it is to have intelligence on said threats, much like counter terrorism.

Law abiding citizens who shoot their guns are reacting to a threat. Not preventing it.

In what magical world do you live in where you think stopping an active shooter at the earliest convenience is not 110% beneficial to everyone?

Every active shooter/mass shooting that has been stopped by an ordinary citizen has undoubtedly saved the lives of other would-be innocent victims.

That number is over 30% of all active shootings between 2014 and 2021. And over 50% of all active shootings in 2021 alone.

pic related:
Scene from 4 hours ago in Prague.
10-15 dead, dozens injured.

I don't suppose you could imagine what would have happened if there was an ordinary citizen shooting back at the gunman... Perhaps 10-15 people would still be alive

And yet gun ownership doesn't prevent this sort of thing happening. Gun Control just might.

 

[Bread.]

And yet gun ownership doesn't prevent this sort of thing happening. Gun Control just might.

And yet you still beat around the bush and avoid answering the questions.

OWNED