In general I agree with you but I believe that it's hard to hold this kind of discussions because they are quite similar to religious discussions - to much emotions involved.
I believe that banning guns in USA in this moment would be ineffective, there are so many guns laying around that you simply can't catch em all.
Comment has been collapsed.
You might very well be right, there. I'm approaching this from my perspective, of course. And I don't see why in the world I would ever want to have a gun. Hell no! I was handed a pistol while staying in the US and was prompted to point it at a target. I can't say I enjoyed it.
Could you try to explain to me, why guns are so important to Americans?
Comment has been collapsed.
Because of the American Revolution, how we came to be as a nation. Ordinary people taking their guns and rising up against the British is how we became a country.
It's the 2nd right in our Bill of Rights "The right to bear arms". Declared to be our right, some people believe it's their DUTY, to be prepared to fight for themselves and their families against a possible oppressive government.
Comment has been collapsed.
So it's simply pathos?
Like the Poles clinging so strongly to the Catholic church because it defined them as a nation during the Polish partitions, when there was no Poland on the map for 123 years. It's amazing how historic events that happened so long ago still influence the present so much.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly. The unfortunate thing is that guns, as American forefathers envisioned them, really are not necessary in this day and age. People talk about the right to protect themselves, but the NRA junkies have fucking arsenals ... let's be honest, it's a hobby for them more than anything else.
Comment has been collapsed.
Debated a lot about this yesterday in another thread so I'm not going to get too political.
All I'm gonna say is: we have some of the strictest gun laws here in the UK and therefore one of the lowest rates of firearm-related deaths in the world.
Comment has been collapsed.
In fairness though, both Britain and Ireland where I live are islands, which makes it much more difficult to smuggle guns/drugs in and makes it easier to police these laws. These laws more than likely would not be as successful in the U.S because of it's land connection to Mexico/South America.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I live in Germany, which has eight land borders (if I counted correctly, definitely not less) and there are way fewer such incidents in the news, than in the States.
Even if such a law would be harder to police there, it still would very likely help.
Comment has been collapsed.
People fail to realize that the guns were only the chosen tool of the killer. If he didn't have access to his mother's handguns then he would have found a different weapon. A knife, bow and arrow, a bomb? The shooter wasn't a sane individual and is solely responsible for all the deaths. With the wealth of information on the internet he could have easily made pipe bombs instead. Taking away the right to bear arms will not solve the problem. That only makes sure that law enforcement officers and criminals have them. To stop things like this from happening we have to pay attention to people and fix things at the root of the problem.
Also what the news rarely covers is the news were guns protect people. Not too long ago in Houston or Dallas, Texas; a young woman called 911 with someone having broke into her apartment after her husband died and was trying to kill her and her newborn. Long story short she asked if she could protect herself and shot and killed the would-be killer protecting herself and baby.
Comment has been collapsed.
I see your point but there's another really famous case in America I'm sure you've heard about where an unarmed teenager was gunned down and killed "in defense". It's a controversial issue and will probably be one of the most debated subjects in the US these next few months. But as I've said elsewhere in this thread, I've seen how tough gun laws can work in my country backed up by facts and figures.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're postulating some virulent disease that has spread throughout society, which is the cause for some young fellow going nuts and starting a killing spree. First of all, I'd like to know what that is supposed to be. Then I'd like to know how you suggest society treat it.
It seems more likely to me - although I'll happily be convinced otherwise - that you're just looking for scapegoats other than the gun laws being what they are. Now, don't get me wrong, I have no interest in blaming a law or anyone or anything else for that matter. It is completely beside the point to pinpoint anyone responsible in this matter! You should instead think about how such shootings can be avoided. And this is by treating the symptom - take away the guns and you'll massively reduce the incidents. If you don't believe this would do the trick, then just look at all the numbers cityheadache has provided. You will find similar numbers in all well-established democratic countries. There is overwhelming evidence for strict gun control meaning massively less armed crimes. Cases of people attacking public places with stuff other than firearms are simply rare. And who is to say that anyone who did use a gun for some mass shooting would in fact have used a bomb they built themselves? You're saying that school shootings would turn into school bombings in the absence of gun availability? Seems awfully far-fetched. Again, just look at the facts in Europe.
About that 911 example that supposedly shows that guns can help: Are you implying that the criminal was attacking without a firearm and still being a serious threat? If not, then this can't be an argument against banning guns in general. At most it can show that there can be serious issues with taking guns away from the people, now that they have them, because of what Bor said above.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with stricter gun control, but from your post it seems to me like you see guns as the only problem. This is not about the shootings, but about world wide events that continue to take place for the past few decades.In 1995 in Rwanda over 800,000 people were killed with machetes being the weapon of choice. In over 14,500 IED attacks in Afghanistan in 2012 have killed or injured 1874 U.S. troops, countless of deaths from suicide bombers in the middle east. July 7th, 2005 London Subway bombings, three bombs left 52 dead and over 700 injured, and on July 21st of 2005 four more bombs were attempted to be detonated. Within a few minutes I can search online and find plans for a homemade bomb using household cleaners and supplies from the local hardware store. My argument is not for or against guns. It is that there is more pieces to the puzzle than just weapons.
About the single mom
Comment has been collapsed.
Then yes, you are right, there are other problems in the world as well.
My original post was only about arguments for or against gun control, though, and I thought this was what you replied to.
And about the single mom incident: So the perp did not have a gun and so yes, she did legitimately defend herself and the kid and could do so only because she had one. In this case then, the second amendment helped one or possibly two innocent people survive.
I'm hoping these cases are way less numerous than cases of gun abuse.
Comment has been collapsed.
Again you're right, but you can't fix everyone's brain. People go nuts sometimes. It will always be like this for whatever reason.
It doesn't matter whether guns are the cause of the problem if taking them away can help, is what I'm saying.
And also my original post was mostly about the argument "if everyone had a gun..." being bull.
Comment has been collapsed.
Look at the stabbings in China. Yes, there was an attacker that chose to use different weapons but how many of those people died? Guns make it remarkably easy to kill your intended targets whereas other weapons, not so much.
By your same argument these cases of people protecting themselves could just as easily be done with other weapons with less risk of collateral damage. In fact, in most of these cases you're only taking out 1-3 people so it shouldn't be a problem.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree to an extent, but I also believe that if you wanted to kill people there will always be a way and tools to carry out your plan. Suicide bombing in the Middle East take countless lives every year. The Oklahoma City Bombing back in 1995 was carried out using fertilizer from a home improvement store. My argument is not for or against guns, but it is stating that they are not the cause of this rampant problem.
The Kansas City Chiefs quarterback after Jovan Belcher killed himself stated that with Facebook and Twitter we tend to lose track of people even though we "communicate," and wondered what could have been different if he actually stopped and took the time to see if things were really ok.
Comment has been collapsed.
What about armed hijackings in traffic? Are you suggesting people would use bombs for that?
Such incidents do happen in the States, right? I haven't heard of any such crime around here. At least it is much less likely to occur because your average ghetto kid just isn't going to have a gun where I live.
The second part is the root of the problem, then? People failing to adapt to the world changing? I agree that the world around us is changing rapidly and that many people might lose track. So what do we do about it? Do we try to help them? Yes, please. Can we count on fixing the problem overnight? Certainly not. Do we take away their guns in the meanwhile so they don't do anything stupid? Me: yes. You: no?
Comment has been collapsed.
People abuse prescription drugs, do we take away all prescription drugs? The point I was trying to make is even if you have a total gun ban in the U.S. the bad guys would still find them. At this point it would be like putting a bandaid on a sucking wound. The people if these recent mass shootings were mentally ill people, and not standard gun owners.
Comment has been collapsed.
Prescription drug abuse hurts the abusers, not other people.
"the bad guys" still assumes that it's clear cut, who is potentially going to abuse a gun and who is not. You can't control it. Therefore it's better if nobody has a gun. Nobody having a gun is impossible? Fine, then make it as few people as possible. This leads to fewer abuse leading to fewer killing.
And I'm not saying that all people owning guns are evil. I'm not looking to blame people.
Comment has been collapsed.
The massacre could have been averted if those children were bearing arms. Therefore it is inevitable that every American starts carrying weapons in Kindergarten from now on. This is the only way to ensure that such a tragedy will never happen again, so we will be able to build up our future, for us.
More guns = more safety.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1. And it's quite a clever spin on the argument.
Comment has been collapsed.
As an American there's a huge cultural component here. I'm very much for increased gun control but to many people gun control is an unspeakable crime. People on both sides of the argument completely ignore any evidence that opposes their views. My main issue comes down to the fact that most people I've met that carry weapons are completely delusional about their abilities. Many of them are convinced that the Tueller drill is crap and that they could easily draw and kill a knifer within 21 feet of them. They also seem to think that in every shooting situation anyone carrying a gun will have perfect knowledge of who the bad guys are, where all the good guys area, and precisely the best time to shoot so as not to cause collateral damage. Even special forces that train extensively in tactical shooting (note this is NOT just shooting targets at a range) have great difficulty taking all of the variables into account in a shooting incident. What the hell makes the average person think they can?
Comment has been collapsed.
Guns make it easier for whom to kill? For killers? So anyone with the intention to kill is already a killer, then?
Ask any judge, lawyer, or any philosopher of the law and they will tell you this is wrong.
There is no "killing mindset" that some people have and others don't. There are extreme situations in which any of us would kill and there are psychological conditions in which it doesn't take much for the subject having them to acquire the intention to kill.
Guns turn would-be-killers into killers. Insofar guns do make killers.
I agree with wwfarch. Even trained professionals would have a hard time reacting promptly and efficiently to chaos breaking out in a school yard because of some kid drawing a gun and going postal. Therefore, in practice, the effectiveness of armed guards in schools would be limited.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am very open to evidence opposing my view. I have been made aware today of how problematic it could be to just ban all guns overnight. So, I've learned something new. What else am I overlooking?
Also: Why would some people choose everyone having a firearm over nobody having one. Is this based solely on the constant fear of someone else having one, after all, and thus having an advantage? Or is there some other reason I'm overlooking?
Comment has been collapsed.
Give it a couple of weeks or months and people will forget any of this occurred. Tired of hearing about the same story and the gruesome details, they'll refocus back on the fiscal cliff, Sandy recovery, crime, or Sunday night football games.
The cry for gun control will diminish, life will go on, and then another shooting will occur that reignites the whole debate yet again.
Nothing will get done, people will forget, and the cycle continues unabated.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's like any other right, it can be abused. I can say racist and hurtful things just as easily as I can express sorrow and gratitude. That being said guns may not have as many benefits as other rights along with the fact that they can take away others rights. I think this whole situation comes down to three points.
I am just glad that I live in Canada, where despite the fact that our gun laws are being loosened our crime rate, laws and gun culture are much different so we see much lower rates (in total and per capita) of gun crime. Also frankly I'm just tired of the coverage, it just angers and annoys me (interviewing traumatized school kids after a shooting, letters written by victims showing up on facebook, nothing in the news and on tv but more coverage, hell even 20/20 made and aired a special just hours after). Those who feel changes should be made to gun laws can sign this petition on the White House petition website or contact your local government representative here.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's a difference between informing and obsessing. While this discussion is happening all across the internet and the world which does promote some killers, I think the most important thing is that we feel grateful for what we have and that we each take some kind of action to ensure things like this don't happen.
Comment has been collapsed.
Both sides had guns in World War 2. You'd have thought that would have been enough to stop everyone shooting each other.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, but:
As consolation, if you want some insight into the American mindset on the subject, I'd say our desire to preserve our right to own weapons is probably in direct proportion to our fear of our own government.
Comment has been collapsed.
15 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by Romaki96
20 Comments - Last post 51 minutes ago by adam1224
220 Comments - Last post 58 minutes ago by WaxWorm
20 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by CommissarCiaphasCain
444 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by Rocky9
1,416 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by xInfinityJoako1
1,359 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by anditsung
61 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by tobimori
81 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by dmunozan
26,555 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by Channel28
45 Comments - Last post 25 minutes ago by ChaosCVZ
2,395 Comments - Last post 45 minutes ago by JMM72
159 Comments - Last post 45 minutes ago by JMM72
43 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by SerenaM
So everybody's talking about the Newtown massacre and gun laws are potentially up for review. I'm a European so I'm used to guns simply being inaccessible to the public. We have way less armed crime going on over here. Hardly any 20-year-old individual could ever get their hands on a gun when they feel the need to die spectacularly.
Now what I get from some Americans I have talked to is this argument: If everyone had a firearm, there would be no armed crime. This is because every potential victim could then potentially strike back, hence creating a balance of forces.
People argumenting in this way do so because they want to keep their right to acquire and own guns. I'm told this is the second amendment with a long-lasting tradition. I'm told that it goes back to the American War of Independance when people needed the option to forcefully fight their oppressive government. It is all about personal freedom.
Now when asked whether the 5-year-old kids should have had guns on them, the gun-lovers respond by saying that instead the teachers should have been trained to efficiently gun down the attacker and/or that armed guards are needed in schools.
In my view this would mean an easier access to guns for suicidal students (guns left unattended by scatterbrain teachers, etc.) and also it would require schoolyard killings as a necessary evil (teachers gunning down the perp in front of kids). Also I don't really believe security could ever be perfect and the kids 100% safe.
More interestingly, though, doesn't pimping public forces inevitably lead to a police state massively empowering the state vs. the individual? And don't the gun-lovers therefore resort to accepting the opposite of what they start out wanting in defending their gun laws? Aren't they cannibalising their own argument of personal freedom?
Your thoughts, Watson?
Comment has been collapsed.