Gun control: Due to recent events

[Cortez (Mr. T. FOO!)]

UK banned guns. Higher crime rate than US.

Lotta crime here I have to admit, a lot of rough areas nowadays.

But anyway, on a basis you have to take into account the sizes of population, There will be more crime in more populated areas, and seeing as how the US is widespread...

You have to also take into account cost of living, poverty line, drinking culture etc.

[Old Crow]

Nice to see we can still have a discussion in CG 

[Kwaurtz]

Since I wasn't here to really put my two cents in, I'm doing such now:

Making something illegal doesn't stop people from doing it, and in fact, would essentially cause many problems in the united states at this point in time if such a thing was even considered. I live in Kentucky, known as a class 3 state. For those who may not know what that means, is that I as a private citizen, am allowed to own both a silencer for my weapons, and I'm allowed to own military grade weaponry, including semi-automatic and fully-automatic weaponry. I've fired several varities of these weapons, including but not up to .38 special, 9mm glock, and  an ak-47with hollowpoints (I don't know why they'd waste hollowpoints on an AK, but that is besides the point).

Now, with all of this said, the guns did not kill them, the person wielding the guns did. There were obvious underlying issues not being addressed with this young man that would cause him to kill his own mother, and to barge into a classroom and to gun down a group of children and administrator's at a school his mother did not even work at. Guns do not have conscious, they do not choose whom they kill, the person who wields them does. The mother, whom had purchased the guns, should have had them secured in such a fashion that only she can gain access to them, such as a safe. Whether or not someone chooses to own a gun as at their discretion, but they should take the utmost care and safety when storing the firearm, so that someone who is not the owner, such as children, etc. cannot gain access to said weaponry.

Just because you make something illegal, doesn't stop someone from getting it. I can introduce you to v

Stalker much? but i guess your logic makes since

Once again though, I apologize for using your post as an example, I had focusing on one person, but you were the only way I could state my point. Now that I'm on my Laptop, I can make a proper post.

When I say Kid, I'm referring to everyone below 19, (Including myself) Sure you can't control everyone who has a gun, but when you make it illegal for anyone say, under the age of 21 to own or operate a fire arm outside of Firing Range, you've already lowered it the crime rate.

There's no more parents thinking Timmy is read for his first shotgun at the age of 13. Sure the cops can't make sure ever kid doesn't have a gun, but the parents can.

And that at the very least is a start, you've already removed such a large chunk of the population in a single shot, then you can begin a proper clean up of the other age ranges.

Your entire argument is lacking perspective. Hunting is a huge sport, and it is not uncommon for kids whom come from family's who hunt to own rifles here, which is about the only justifiable reason for owning a weapon as a kid. When is the last time that any of these school shootings, etc, happened from a child who was brought up with gun safety training/actually had the legal means of owning the guns themselves? None of them, including columbine. All of the weapons were acquired from others. Its okay for someone to enjoy owning a gun, because it can be used for sport (Skeet shooting, Hunting, Rifiling). I also come from a MJROTC high school, home to the top two marksmen in the country of the graduating class of 2010. Owning and purchasing a weapon through legal means teaches you the respect and the knowledge that what you have can kill, and that is something that is necessary.

[Pillz]

If it's illegal, maybe people won't keep their illegal guns out where kids or other people can get to them. I don't care if people will still have guns afterwards, the idea is most people won't; and if they stop selling bullets legally too things will be very tough. Guns will probably become criminal gold, and I think the police should still be entitled to have guns. Maybe stun-guns that actually just knock people out or something; but I don't know.

I don't see them really ever getting banned I just wish they never existed. I feel like thinks would be more fair and meh. The thing is we just can't get rid of all of them so oh well I guess.

[Old Crow]

@ Tic: I do agree maybe we should raise the minimum age, and maybe there should be some training to go along with the purchase of a gun, but I cannot conceive that it would lower crime that much. Look at the guy that shot up that Oregon mall, he stole his friends weapon.

@Pillz: Little late to be asking for the gun to not be invented XD. In all seriousness, the gun at least allows most normal people to defend themselves. Swords, Bows etc require actual training to use properly and effectively, meaning that in reality the only people that were able to get proper training were people with money or people that could raise an army.

When you look at history, it is something that has allowed the common man the ability to earn his freedom, albeit through bloodshed but none the less from the French Revolution to the American Revolution, to the Boer War and so on, most of the revolutions have happened only because of the effectiveness of the gun (and no, I am not in any way condoning the use, but look up most revolutions and alot happened during the 1700, 1800, when guns became common.)

[theyankees213]

Swords, Bows etc require actual training to use properly and effectively

True, i own both

[Inject OH 4]

You guys fail to realize how big the population is in the US when you compare it to Finland (Tendovvi!). We have 300+ million, you have almost 6 million. When you only have that small of a number of people to watch out for, it makes it pretty easy to control things but here, we got basically 6 different regions (Pacific, West, Southwest, South, East, Midwest. Just for simplicity sake) that all have different mentalities about everything. There really isn't a one size fits all gun control. You either allow them or don't.

I don't see how this is relevant. Unless the police to citizen ratio is a different size then this is irrelevant. However, you can't just simply ban guns either. America has been around for some time , You can't change a major law like that when it would effect a massive population and if everyone already has guns how would this help? It would cause more of a ruckus then it would solve. It has to be something implemented near the start of a country's existence to work not after it's already been up and running. *Which is why I think it works in Finland etc*

I do think perhaps stricter laws on guns could be added to perhaps limit the people with guns. Such as more restrictions on what guns you may own, how many you may own, how you store your ammo and gun, and even if you should be able to carry one in public.

The one thing I don't agree with is being able to have a gun anywhere you want. I see no issue with having a gun at home or hunting etc. But you should never be able to just walk down the street with a gun strapped to your side unless you at least have a permit for doing so. But remember that is just my opinion.

Either way I think things could be changed, but to ban them altogether would be crazy and ineffective.

[Old Crow]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910

For those that think outright banning guns would change everything (not saying anybody here is stating that opinion)

[Link236]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910

For those that think outright banning guns would change everything (not saying anybody here is stating that opinion)

This is exactly it. I posted an article on this incident in my earlier post. Guns aren't the main problem, it's the people who use them. The only reason guns are under heat is because it is much easier for the media to use guns as a scapegoat than people with mental disorders.

[Inject OH 4]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910

For those that think outright banning guns would change everything (not saying anybody here is stating that opinion)

This is exactly it. I posted an article on this incident in my earlier post. Guns aren't the main problem, it's the people who use them. The only reason guns are under heat is because it is much easier for the media to use guns as a scapegoat than people with mental disorders.

Problem number 1. The media

[Link236]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910

For those that think outright banning guns would change everything (not saying anybody here is stating that opinion)

This is exactly it. I posted an article on this incident in my earlier post. Guns aren't the main problem, it's the people who use them. The only reason guns are under heat is because it is much easier for the media to use guns as a scapegoat than people with mental disorders.

Problem number 1. The media

Problem number 2. Neglect for people with mental disorders
Problem number 3. NRA

[Cadaver]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/18/bath_school_bombing_remembering_the_deadliest_school_massacre_in_american.html

Been going on for a while.  This is not a recent event concept.

Basically put, my grandmother was a nurse.  She made a comment about the closings of the State run "mental health hospitals" which were closed nationwide back in the 1980's.  She said," This is not a good plan.  There are those who need to be institutionalized.  We will suffer due to this choice."   She was right.

For far, far, far too long, the U.S. has not had a focus on Mental Health.  This is the reason behind the attack, a mental issue.  Cold and calculated, and fully planned.  Yet, not the moves of a sane person.  The firearm was merely a tool for the sick mind to use.  The story above, the fellow used dynamite.   

Connecticut has some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation.   Fat lot of good those gun laws did.   Schools are "Gun Free Zones." This means the law abiding citizens are unarmed in this "zone" because they abide by the law.  The criminal, and in this case, the criminally insane, do not, by definition, follow the law.  This guy knew, due to this law, he would not be stopped.

This fellow had a severe issue, now apparent.  His mother may, too, have had mental issues.  Those issues not addressed equals horrible consequences.

Oh, and if it were the fault of the firearm, why then, with so many "assault" weapons available, this is not a daily event?   Could it be the ownership of said firearm not be the trigger for violence?   
The Firearm is a tool.  It is a weapon that already has many laws to prevent it from being placed in the hands of those who wish to use them criminally.  These laws failed in this case.   So, are more laws going to prevent the situation from happening again?  I doubt it.

What could have limited the scope?  Well, the U.S. has known for a long time (see the link above) violence against schools and school children can happen with severely tragic events.   We know that terrorist attacks are severe, too.  Columbine, apparently, was not a wake up call.  Will Newtown be?  Where was the protection of the school and its students?  You know schools are an easy target, yet do nothing to protect them, and the students there, except passing laws which may actually limit their protection?  Why do we have armed guards protecting less important things like, say, money, banks, and Walmarts? Why have we not protected our largest asset, the children?

[Pillz]

The firearm is a tool designed to make killing more easy. While there have been wars for centuries without guns and bombs; the killing has definitely gone up due to their use in war. If they're going to be legal in neighborhoods and cities we need more people protecting us with them like Cadaver said. They should turn "Neighborhood Watches" into watchtowers with snipers. Maybe only make non-lethal guns legal, like tranquillizers and rubber bullets.

Maybe things will be better in the future; guns could go all Metal Gear on us and be ID-locked to specific users DNA. If you have a mental instability or a criminal record, it becomes impossible to wield an operating gun. Old unlocked guns would still exist but if the ammo stopped being sold super short notice, maybe things would go better for us.

Either way, guns are a problem. Only uses as far as I'm concerned are population control and defense against other people with guns.

Edit: TLDR
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhoLkmUO7Bs" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhoLkmUO7Bs</a>

[Inject OH 4]

"of course this is a topic that is going to ... PHIL... our head lines..."
I see what you did their Source Fed. XD, but in all seriousness whats with your Bonner for source fed Pillz?

And with your first paragraph pillz I am confused. Are you requesting the ban of all lethal fire arms? For home protection, and hunting? This wouldn't really work out to well, and I doubt if anyone in American would be for it, unless they have their arms wrapped around a tree or something or if they are just massive hippies. The problem with your suggestion is these types of weapons are often not instant in their results (talking about your nonlethal suggestion). Especially with rubber bullets. (Also you can't hunt with them and If I recall correctly ammo is expensive)

When you are forced to use a gun it should be a situation where their is no other option and your own or other peoples lives are at stake. When a cop fires his gun, "at least in Canada" you are told to shoot to kill! This isn't because we are monsters It's to protect the safety of others including the cop. This being said however, you can not shoot an unarmed man. The sad unfortunate truth is shooting to wound is simply just to dangerous! First you'd be shooting a smaller target area (IE: legs, also you don't generally aim for the head either) and you leave the risk of retaliation from the gunned man (still talking about if we used non lethal). You are not to fire upon a target if it would pose extreme danger to those around you (IE a Crowd of people).

Cop's are trained to shoot for centre mass to reduce risk of many things, obviously missing being one but also we don't want stray bullets going every where. However, they shouldn't be firing around civilians anyways as they are not suppose to fire if a clear shot does not present it self unless their are no surroundings to be hit (people). Anyways I'm going to much into that. Point is. If you are shooting. You shoot to kill. Theirs a lot of reasons behind it and I didn't really cover them all or that well but, trust me?

I do agree with most of the video though. As for DNA locked guns, their kind of exist. You can get a finger print gun now (can only be shoot by it's owner) but it's not available to citizens or anything nevertheless I'd say that type of reality becoming the mainstream form is far far away from where we are now.

Old unlocked guns would still exist but if the ammo stopped being sold super short notice, maybe things would go better for us.

Old unlocked guns.... Ammunition won't change. The new guns would likely being using the same type of rounds. Ammunition has barely changed over the years it's quit unlikely it would now. I wouldn't put your hopes on any kind of DNA guns any time soon. That is years and years away and I don't think is a way of solving our current predicament.

Gun's are or can be a problem yes. Hunting? Yeah. Defence? Yeah. The thing some people forget is hunting and the fact that guns are a defence that works well vs any home intruder, but do you really need a mac 10 to protect your home? Yeah sure maybe, if you life in South Africa. So no I don't think people need these kinds of guns for home defence but either way changes are needed and I'm sure at least some of them will come to light soon!

[Pillz]

My first paragraph was like 4 paragraphs I narrowed down to avoid TLDR, trying to briefly go over my ideals. Also my youtube feed is very limited, I get sourcefed, PhillyD and like 10 other people who sometimes put videos out.

I basically just think we'd be better off if guns never existed, as we were brilliant hunters before they existed. Crossbows, bow and arrow and traps could still work if people want to hunt. It might make it a tad more complicated but oh well. Sadly guns do exist and even if you completely criminalize fire-arms many people out there will still have them for when they want to shoot something or someone.

Because we can't completely get rid of them, they shouldn't be 100% banned but there should be some serious reduction on WHO can buy a gun. I think no-assault rifles sounds reasonable, and like I said before there needs to be some kind of program that one must go through before being able to fire a gun. That program should keep tabs on them, how much ammo they have and track each bullet fired. These people can be "protectors" if you will and will work as sentries and will be our defense against criminals with guns, for the first few years it would make sense to have increased protection in civilian areas, schools, malls and the such. Since currently someone could walk into one of those places with a gun and open fire and kill whoever they want.

There's really nothing that can be done that will make everyone happy. There are so many gun loopholes and other problems with weapons that have let all the wrong people get their hands on them; but letting everyone have a gun doesn't make things any safer. Even if I wanted a gun to protect myself, 9 times out of 10 where I'd need my shotgun I'd doubt it'd be with me unless I'm one of those people who takes a gun everywhere; and it's people like that I'm scared of to begin with. The only way to fight my fear is to become it, which I don't like.

I think everyone should get a blade of equal length, be trained in sword/knife fighting and martial arts; like the good ole days.

Also non-lethal weapons don't always yield instant results but we also don't have many non-lethal guns as we focus on designing lethal ones. If we put more time into issuing higher dose tranq guns for policemen and guards that could be helpful, but I wouldn't suggest doing something like that until a decade after the removal of guns.

Sadly with guns around there's a problem no matter what you do. So in the near future we'll either see attempts at decreased gun sales and hopefully LESS media blowing up shootings, murders and death on the TV inspiring more people to do it too.

Let's design a super-contraption that destroys all the guns in the world or sucks the gunpowder out of every bullet; then we can live in peace.