Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #66 - monswine (03/05/2014) [-]
This is just one-side of it. Guns don't kill people on their own, sure, but they make it easier. I would much rather have more violent crimes but less homicides.
User avatar #101 to #66 - hydraetis (03/06/2014) [-]
I'm pretty sure tommyguns were illegal for civillian use but the mafia sure didn't seem to care.
User avatar #126 to #101 - monswine (03/06/2014) [-]
Yeah, and it defined a generation of crime and violence and the government devoted untold resources to stopping them which included the creation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, It was a massive problem that had massive resources put behind it instead of the pussy-footing you see today with such issues.
User avatar #163 to #126 - hydraetis (03/06/2014) [-]
It just proves that no matter how much you restrict guns, there will ALWAYS be criminals who have them anyway.
User avatar #164 to #163 - monswine (03/06/2014) [-]
but a severe minority compared to those who had them before. Why is that any possible anti-gun legislation has to be 100% effective at eliminating all hypothetical crime before we even consider discussing it or implementing it. we're not this stringent about any other lawmaking.
User avatar #85 to #66 - icedmantwo (03/06/2014) [-]
Not that long ago, in China, something like 3 men attacked a crowd armed with knives. They killed 27 people and put another 100 or so in the hospital. They could have potentially been stopped by somebody with a gun.
User avatar #87 to #85 - monswine (03/06/2014) [-]
In December 2012 a madman attacked an elementary school killing 20 students and 6 teachers. The same day a madman in China attacked a primary school stabbing 23 of them and killing no-one. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing
User avatar #83 to #66 - Yardie (03/06/2014) [-]
It may make it easier, but the fact is guns exist. Legislation will not get rid of guns.

They aren't that difficult to make and criminals will get a hold of guns or keep their guns if guns suddenly become banned, leaving them in an advantageous position.

It also allows the physically superior to oppress the physically weak a lot easier when it comes to crime. Guns are known as the great equalizer for a reason.
User avatar #86 to #83 - monswine (03/06/2014) [-]
I don't think guns should be eliminated, why would you eliminate them? I just want them to be tracked, some kind of database of who owns what that can be accessed by multiple agencies to keep people accountable. I'm not talking about hunting rifles and shotguns but things like hand-guns and machine guns, stuff designed to kill humans.I wouldn't be opposed to a little safety-lesson accompanying every purchase that's more than the guy over the counter doing his best in the few minutes he might have with the customer to instill a sense of responsibility.

It's true that in a world with fewer privately owned guns the criminals who own guns would be at an advantage over your average joe but they wouldn't need to resort to high-powered assault rifles to have that advantage if a simple revolver would do the trick. The arms race between criminals and police has gotten ridiculous in my opinion. And the vague scraps of information that enforcement agencies can actually put together point that the majority of weapons owned by inner-city gangs are purchased perfectly legally from sellers in areas with less stringent gun-sale legislation than those cities and then imported. So stricter laws in that regard would inherently reduce the supply of guns to criminals.

I think my aversion to fire-arms stems from a inherently unscientific place but I really welcome proper discussion of the topic that's free of that kind of gut-reaction hysteria because I don't like seeing people die and I like to hope there's a solution out there.
User avatar #161 to #86 - Yardie (03/06/2014) [-]
I understand the argument for gun control and I can sympathize with it to an extent, but in my eyes the costs do not outweigh the benefits.

Would the world be nice if people just got along? Sure, but of course it doesn't work that way so we need somebody to regulate it, right? It's a perfectly logical conclusion but it's also incredibly simplistic. There are lots of costs to gun control. It makes it inconvenient to be a law abiding citizen and convenient to be a criminal, the extent based on the harshness of the laws.

Even if there were an equilibrium where you could optimize peace and minimize the costs of regulations, how could one find such a number? There are too many unpredictable human factors for a small group of individuals to decide what the best course of action is.

The Market is an amazing force and that's something people have a grievous misunderstanding about. Individuals making choices that improve society around them is better than a group of individuals deciding on laws and monopolizing force when the individuals in charge are only getting paid when there's a issue they need to fix. There's a conflict of interest there. There are plenty of market forces that prevent the sale of weapons to mentally unstable people. The most obvious being you don't want to be the Company that sold a weapon to a madman who ended up going on a killing spree. It's certainly bad for business.

When there is an issue, people don't naturally throw their hands up clueless about what to do about it, they naturally find a way to fix it. This is only distorted when somebody convinces the public that they are capable of the inhuman feat of fixing all the Earth's problems with a pen and paper (and a Policeman's gun).

Force is not the way to deal with problems and should only be fallen back upon as a last resort. This is something we should have learned in Kindergarten or even Preschool.
User avatar #162 to #161 - monswine (03/06/2014) [-]
I reject the idea that collectivism through economics is the key to the world's problem about as strongly as you reject that government legislation can be a remedy to those problems.
User avatar #165 to #162 - Yardie (03/06/2014) [-]
I don't believe it's key, but I believe it's fundamental for progress.

This is not simply economics. It's philosophy as well. An understanding of human rights and the principles behind them.

Also it's easy to misunderstand, especially through my wording, but I do not say that legislation can never be a good thing. Instead I have come to an understanding that, at a fundamental level, initiation of force is not a justifiable means to an end, whether it be through Government, Religion, or anything else in life.
User avatar #166 to #165 - monswine (03/06/2014) [-]
Then you reject warfare and capital punishment as well?
User avatar #168 to #166 - Yardie (03/06/2014) [-]
I reject initiation of war. Any rational person should.

I do not reject capital punishment in all cases. If they are the aggressor, then they forfeit their rights, as they have broken the fundamental moral code. People have a right to life. If a person has shown that they are incapable of respecting the right to life beyond a reasonable doubt, then they are incapable of living in society peacefully.
User avatar #169 to #168 - monswine (03/06/2014) [-]
hey, so long as your consistent I've got no problem.
User avatar #98 to #86 - icedmantwo (03/06/2014) [-]
In most countries machine guns (fully automatic guns) are either prohibited to civilian ownership or tightly registered and controlled. You talk as though actual assault rifles are freely available to anyone off the streets but they aren't, a true assault rifle (capable of fully automatic fire) requires extensive procedures and lots of money to acquire legally in the USA and even then won't see much use. Crime is related to mental illness or civil unrest in spree events, and a large variety of socioeconomic factors when chronic. Banning guns doesn't get rid of them in any even, with people making guns out of their garages is fairly common.
And in response to your comment above, it shows more that it's the people that commit the crime and will do so regardless of what is easily available to them.

User avatar #125 to #98 - monswine (03/06/2014) [-]
I don't believe gun-ownership equates to crime in any respect, that's as fallacious an argument as saying we need guns to protect ourselves from all the rapists and tyrants. Poverty is probably the single-most factor associated with crime-levels, especially in cities. I'm hesitant to chalk up every shooting and suicide to mental illness after-the-fact but I agree that people who go around murdering others aren't exactly sane. Really? I thought it showed the relative lethality of those crimes. Guns are very good at killing things, people won't stop trying to harm others if they don't have access to guns, I suppose, but they will be a lot less efficient at it. I'm not really concerned about the M-15's and P-90's roaming the streets as much as I am just plain-old handguns. I personally don't think people should own those weapons but that's my opinion and clearly not supported by legislation so I don't want to take away anyone's rights. I have nothing against the, presumably, millions of people who own firearms, I just want to see what we can do to stop the headlines before we completely overhaul the education, economic, healthcare, and defense systems to get at the root of the problem.
User avatar #127 to #125 - icedmantwo (03/06/2014) [-]
Problem is that guns are good at putting holes at things, at a distance, and this happens to be lethal to humans. Now the issue with gun control is that there are thousands-millions of people of all ages, races, and genders that responsibly and legally use guns without ever hurting other people or themselves, and follow all respective laws regarding their ownership and usage. Then there are people who completely ignore the law and will murder and hurt people anyways, regardless of legal access to guns. The motives of these people varies from person to person, and unfortunately does often mean mental illness or poverty, though other times it stems from anger or greed. Restricting gun ownership based on those comparatively few people who would do harm to others is totally unfair for the people who use guns for recreation, self defense and food. The real solution to limit crime, as it will never really go away, is to have better access to mental health care, better education available for all, and better staffed and funded police force for the ones that ignore the first two solutions. Will this be perfect? No. But the second link I posted above shows that even banning guns won't eliminate them, or crime, just like the prohibition era didn't eliminate alcohol usage.
User avatar #129 to #127 - monswine (03/06/2014) [-]
I don't want to eliminate guns, that's a straw man. Nor do I think gun-owners are anything but by-and-large perfectly sane, healthy, reasonable, productive, kind members of society. Let's not pretend that guns were invented for anything else. People didn't build cannons, miniaturize them, apply rifling, refine blackpowder into gunpowder, and then distribute them to soldiers because they thought it was nifty. Accidents can happen, and crazies are out there. I just want to make it as difficult as possible for those crazies and accidents to turn into massacres. I don't want to strip your rights away to do that, making it slightly more laborious to acquire certain weapons and keeping track of them isn't equivalent to wiping off the right from your constitutions or charters. There's a lot we can do to try and reduce crime and I'm willing to try every possible solution including tightening gun legislation and giving more power to the agencies that enforce those laws.

From what I can tell you underestimate the ability of the government to prevent illegal activities from taking place and over-estimate the ability of criminals to acquire illicit goods through illegal means and I'm doing the opposite (over-estimating the cops and under-estimating the robbers). The problem with statistics is they can be misleading and the studies basically cancel each-other out. England, Switzerland, Israel, Australia, Canada, USA, there's always some new interpretation of the evidence that suggests the other side is full of **** . I don't know what the final answer is and who is right and who is wrong. I wish it were clearer and I could just fall on the side of science but alas the evidence doesn't seem to be pointing perfectly in one-direction.

We do a lot of things based on the comparatively few to protect the whole. Seatbelts, guard rails, no-smoking zones, traffic lights. Every illegal behavior, basically. Most people don't use Quaaludes so why are they illegal? Sudafed?
User avatar #172 to #129 - icedmantwo (03/06/2014) [-]
Well as a Canadian I can tell you a few stats about gun crime in Canada. First it is relatively low, despite roughly 3 guns per 10 people, and the something like 97% of all our crime is committed with handguns. Now out of those handguns around 95% are acquire illegally, a little bit from theft, mostly from smuggling. Right now there is massive controversy in Canada surrounding the attempts of the RCMP, a federal police force, to rewrite the laws regarding gun ownership, since they have made 2 popular guns illegal to own, potentially putting around 13000 Canadians in jail (doubling the prison population) and destroying about $15,000,000 worth of property with no compensation. These people have committed no actual crimes. Canadian citizens as a whole seem to be very mad about this because bureaucrats are trying to write the law now. Times are changing now, and it seems like gun control all over has lost it's wind, and will be reduced to background checks, or basic licencing, since that prevents criminals from owning them for the most part, as well as people who have been involuntarily committed to a psych ward. For everyone else, they are innocent until proven guilty.
User avatar #173 to #172 - monswine (03/06/2014) [-]
Yeah, as a Canadian I'm aware of the attachment many people have to their firearms and I don't seek to deprive people of their legal weapons nor punish them legally for owning them but I thought the database was a reasonable solution though I might have excluded hunting guns from the registry.
User avatar #174 to #173 - icedmantwo (03/06/2014) [-]
Well what defines a hunting gun then? An AR15 is one of the most popular hunting guns at the moment, but fall under the prohibited category (can't hunt with it, must be registered) in Canada, the AK47 is totally prohibited (right from the start in this case), and then the ACR and mini14 are nonrestricted and the VZ58 is nonrestricted, while functionally they are all similar. Everyone's opinion on what a "hunting gun" is varies from person to person, which makes it extraordinarily hard to regulate such a law. If anything only handguns could be argued that they should be registered, and even then that would be near, if not totally, impossible in the USA and already happens in Canada. This once again brings up the point that the vast majority of crimes are committed with smuggled or stolen handguns which makes such a registry mostly useless anyways.
User avatar #175 to #174 - monswine (03/06/2014) [-]
smuggled or stolen from somewhere, a somewhere that is for the moment untraceable because keeping track of the data is illegal.

I guess I define a hunting weapon as a gun designed for hunting. As opposed to a weapon of war designed for killing humans. You're right there is plenty of disagreement and leeway but, you know, that's life.
User avatar #176 to #175 - icedmantwo (03/06/2014) [-]
If you smuggle a gun from another country it won't have ever been on the registry, and if a gun is stolen then you will most likely find yourself at a theft report, not at the person who actually committed the crime. And once again you have to specifically name guidelines as to what a "hunting gun" is compared to a "war gun". You could consider that most guns are originally based off of guns designed for war, or are straight up military surplus rifles sold to civilians (SKS, Lee Enfield, Mosin Nagant etc) that are often used for hunting. I would like to point out again that civilians, especially in Canada, can't own fully automatic or burst fire rifles.
User avatar #177 to #176 - monswine (03/06/2014) [-]
I'm perfectly aware of what I find to be the current deplorable state of gun-law in the US and Canada but I think the way forward is improved legislation and not throwing our hands up in the air and giving up because it's too complex.
User avatar #178 to #177 - icedmantwo (03/06/2014) [-]
I haven't said we should just give up on it, I've been saying that it's more complex than what you seem to realize, and that a lot of issues involving guns don't relate directly to gun control and could be mitigated elsewhere without infringing on the people that haven't and won't ever commit a crime.
User avatar #179 to #178 - monswine (03/06/2014) [-]
that's fine, but to you things like gun control and the registry seem useless because they wont ever stop 100% of crime and so there value to crime prevention or crime solution is unimportant?
User avatar #180 to #179 - icedmantwo (03/06/2014) [-]
I'm saying the cost:usefulness ratio is way too skewed towards cost, especially considering the long gun registry cost ~$2,000,000,000 during it's lifetime and didn't solve any crimes. This would registry included the following guns
You need to login to view this link
And yet no crimes were solved with it.
User avatar #181 to #180 - monswine (03/06/2014) [-]
it never had a chance.
User avatar #182 to #181 - icedmantwo (03/06/2014) [-]
It was active for about 10 years, and was only accessed something like 2 or 3 times and none of the times it was accessed solved anything. It was also hacked several times, and potentially used by criminals to know where to go to steal guns for illegal usage.
User avatar #183 to #182 - monswine (03/06/2014) [-]
got to love all of those hypothetical crimes
User avatar #186 to #183 - icedmantwo (03/06/2014) [-]
is this you admitting that the registry only caused harm and expense while doing nothing useful?
User avatar #184 to #183 - icedmantwo (03/06/2014) [-]
You mean a useless registry that was >supposed< to help prevent or solve crime being used to cause more crime?
User avatar #185 to #184 - monswine (03/06/2014) [-]
yes, the rash of Canadian gun thefts immediately following ''hacks''
#80 to #66 - drtfgyhuj (03/06/2014) [-]
This is literally the one point that anti gun control people ignore. Having a gun makes it so much easier to kill someone, or yourself.
 Friends (0)