To gun, or not to gun?

That's only counting accidental gun deaths, not purposeful killing.
Guns account for at least 80 percent of murders in the US, if not more.

There's not even ninjas in the US, let alone enough to kill more than 33,000 people a year.
People do get killed by hippos more often than you'd think, but it's not 33,000 a year.
On a different note, approximately 40,000 Americans are killed in toilet-related accidents, more than gun violence.
Just goes to show how stupid most Americans are.

 

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

Here's the non accidental deaths.

 

Firstly, that just doesn't happen.
Secondly, do you even know what the word accidental means?

 

Aside from hunting and the law force, I see no reason to have a gun.

If you feel threatened you should call the police or find another way to defend yourself. Not just shoot somebody.

If we removed guns there would be little to no murders in the first place; guns are mainly what cause murder. Knives and other things aren't as efficient in killing as guns.

I recently saw on the news that an NBA basketball player was killed with a gun just because he went into a room the wrong hotel room. Imagine making it into the NBA (if that's your dream), having your whole life ahead of you, just to be shot and killed by someone by accident?

The fact that anybody has the ability to take my life so easily is disgusting.

 

What makes you think that?

Don't you think people would start using other things?

Most murders are single-instance, or 2 at a time. Knives would work just as well.

"A Dallas resident told police he heard someone enter his apartment by kicking open the front door, police spokesman DeMarquis Black said in a statement. The resident said "he called out to the individual, but was not answered," and when the resident's bedroom door was kicked open, the resident fired his gun, police said"-http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/28/us/nba-player-fatally-shot/

The fact is, someone with a knife could take your life easily. Someone with a bow, someone with a baseball bat, someone with a hatchet or ax... Sure, it requires some physical effort, but the end result is the same.

 

And yet another mass shooting within America... I don't understand... I understand the 2nd amendment, but it was created such a long time ago when there was not such a thing as a police force. From what I can see, the 2nd amendment was made so that if America was ever invaded by another country then a milita could quickly be formed in defence. But thats not what it is nowadays is it?

Also the 2nd amendment was created when guns where rifles and took a whole minute to reload, not AK47's and all that.

I don't understand it, I'm sorry.

 

I believe that it was intended to prevent the people from being subjugated by any army (including our own), as well as protect our right to self defense (from any danger, human or animal).

Ak 47's are rifles...

And that doesn't change the intent. That's why it didn't say: "The right to have guns", it said "The right to bear arms".

 

Ok so i got my terminology wrong with the AK 47's pardon me, but they are semi or fully automatic guns, not a single shot which takes a minute to reload no?

"A well regulated Militia" sounds like an army to call on if needed, not for everyone to carry around a large amount of guns everywhere.

Look, I understand its a big party of American culture and I think it has gone too far for guns to be totally removed, but why cant they be regulated much more? Surely people cant be happy about having more mass shootings then the amount of days in a year?

 

And?

Language was a lot different 250 years ago

Why should they be?
More regulations won't really stop gun violence; it's really, really easy to obtain a gun illegally.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/loca...ar-353--or-4-depending-on-your-definition.ece

To summarize:
If you narrow the definition of mass shooting to: Four or more people killed, aside from the shooter, excluding gang violence, armed robbery, and domestic violence (which don't really count for what we're talking about), there were 4. Not 365+

 

1. Surely you dont need fully automatic guns to defend yourself? Surely a handgun would be 'enough'
2. Language was a lot different 250 years ago. Yes but so was the technology and the advancements of guns, there werent such extreme guns. The constitution was made for then, it needs to be changed for the culture now.
3. Perhaps it is easy to obtain a gun illegally, however I often here the talk that often people with mental difficulties are people who end up shooting up schools and stuff like that, surely stopping them with gun control would be a good idea. You cant be happy with so many people dieing to gun violence can you?
4. Even without "many mass shootings" as it were, surely you can't be happy with the gun crime in the US? Surely not.

Look, I'm not trying to take away your rights, but your rights need some serious changing to make them make a lot more sense.

When there was the dunblane school shooting in scotland in 1996, the government introduced very tight gun control, especially on handguns. Since that happened in 1996 there has only been one significant shooting incident since then with the cumbria shootings in 2010. Surely thats a good thing?

 

A). For protection against a human/animal? Would a pistol work on a bear? Surely not. Would it work on a man wearing body armor? Quite possibly not.
B). For protection against oppression either by a foreign power or by our own? Not nearly.

You keep saying this but you haven't said why it's a problem.

A). Culture isn't what you're referring to.
B). You're saying that people today don't recognize the same basic natural rights as people of the day. I would argue that those haven't changed. The rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, defense of self and property, trial by jury, etc. all still apply today.

That is exactly the kind of person you can't stop. The person who plans out the murder.

I'm not happy with people dying at all, but it's part of life. And to the gun violence part: it makes up less than 0.43% of all deaths. In fact, about 66% of deaths by gun are suicides; people that wouldn't be deterred by the lack of a gun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

And? Your proposed 'solution' doesn't really work. Sure, gun crime rates might drop, assuming you could actually get rid of guns, but crime rates wouldn't. People would just turn to other weapons.

What you're saying is this: "I'm not trying to take away your rights, just restrict them."

http://www.scccj.org.uk/index.php/scottish-crime-and-justice-faqs/homicide-rates/
It appears that it's completely irrelevant, because it (the gun control) had no effect on homicide rates.

 

Look were never going to agree on this haha, so I'll leave it here but thankyou for the interesting debate

 

Would just like to say this: The method of suicide is an important factor. Most people who attempt suicide don't actually die by suicide. But guns make it very hard to get that second chance and recover one's mental health.

It would make crime less lethal. With weapons, such as knives, you cannot commit nearly the amount of damage you can. I'm not saying ban all guns. I'm just saying be smart about the kinds of guns people are allowed. The reason you don't see people with bazookas blowing things up is because they are outlawed.

Any kind of right you can think of has its limits. 2nd amendment rights are no stranger here.

They do recognize the same principles. That's why the 14th amendment can apply to more things today than it did back then. However, it's important to note that as time progresses, there's new need for us to base laws around the constitution. The 2nd amendment allows us to regulate our weapons. Why are we not using that ability to pass meaningful gun regulations to assure that people both: aren't capable of committing mass murders and are mentally stable to own firearms.

Well sure, a rifle could take down a bear, but since when was it such a big problem that we needed it? At least a pistol offers some form of protection.
I can agree that we need guns to stop an oppressive power, but I think this argument is overused in a defense for guns. It's clear we should be more worried about crazy people than we should about an oppressive foreign power (which would very easily be defeated by our military if we choose to deal with it)

 

I keep an 11mm smith and Wesson, 9mm browning, 30-30 Remington, an unbranded .300, a Winchester 30-o6, two Remington 12 gauges, one barreled and double barreled, and one 12 gauge all locked in a gun cabinet, responsibly stored, with ammo in a separate locked container. Nobody can access them except for me, and I don't use them except for hunting (although home defense is not something off the scale). I can tell you from experience that guns are very safe. You just have to be responsible in handling them. If you go to sell a gun, you should always check the person you're selling to and do it through the proper legal system. Otherwise, you will have problems. Responsibility is what we need more of, not gun control.

 

Coase as soon as a terrorist attacks u and your gun is going to go out and take them down?

I love how the abhor is pro gun but the title of his pro gun page is a reference to passage about suicide.

 

People seem to not know what gun control even is anymore. Gun control is just extra measures (through legislation) to make sure people are responsible and that they have weapons suitable for their needs (I don't think weapons capable of shooting dozens within seconds counts are suitable for one's needs). You are a responsible gun owner. Gun control probably won't affect you.

 

When the lead candidate for the Democratic Party wants to model Austrialian gun control laws, I'm pretty sure it will affect everyone. Regardless, any form of gun control affects gun owners. Whether it is background checks, registration of firearms, requiring licenses to own firearms, banning fully automatic rifles, etc. I'd be fine and dandy with background checks, not allowing those with serious mental illness or convicted felons to purchase/own guns, and increased security on automatics and extended mags. However, when politicians start talking bans like 7 rounds max per clip, seizure and banning of automatic weapons, or all out banning of firearms, then there's a problem.

 

Unfortunately, the attitude I'm seeing from Republican congressmembers is not any form of compromise. They don't want any sort of new regulations to be put in place, no matter how basic and reasonable it may be. Even if their plans included not banning automatic weapons (which are already banned - we're talking about semi-automatic weapons), 7 round max per clip, or banning all firearms (which is a very very rare proposal), then I still see nothing but gridlock. Even if the plan includes fixing the No Fly list (as in, taking out the random people) and banning people on the No Fly list from buying weapons, the bills would still be voted down.

Hell, it's so easy to go to the next town over and circumvent any regulations and background checks in your own town. This is one reason why so many guns in Chicago gun violence are legally purchased and come from nearby suburbs and Indiana/Wisconsin. We need national legislation to keep everyone in check and make sure nobody is bypassing the system. But because the NRA lobbies congress members (they have given a total of 3.7 million dollars to congress), it's very hard to get them to take serious action on this issue. Because of that, I've become frustrated with repeating what I've said before.

 

What should be happening is prohibiting people with mental health issues, and violent crimes in their past/present. Additionally, to purchase/own a firearm one should hold a license, modeled after licensing to drive vehicles. One must take a test to show proficiency, and then re-test every 4 years.

 

That's the basis on which I aced my English final

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 23, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 23, 2016 ---

This isn't anything new or specific to a single party. This is simply bipartisan politics.