Study shows gun control would prevent mass shootings

[Shugo]

As a gun owner I am saying this - we need more gun control. We need mental evaluation for anyone who purchases a gun, even if they have no mental health history. Of course guns can be bought illegally but better control would obviously reduce the problem.

If you are against gun control you are a piece of shit and you should kill yourself. Seriously, fuck you.

Who decides the mental qualification test to buy a gun? What is the test exactly?

Do you think this guy had a mental qualification when he became an armed security guard? Do you think he had a mental qualification when he worked as an armed prison guard?

If he passed these mental qualifications, why do you think that a mental qualification to buy a gun would stop someone else deranged?

The solution you're proposing in response to this attack would not have stopped this attack.

If something like that were to be implemented there would need to be some checks and balances to make sure it wasn't being abused by biased people, much like the No Fly List has been.

People have been put on the No-Fly list simply for taking a political stance against the death penalty. We absolutely need to abolish these tools: the government abuses things like the no fly list to strip people of their rights simply for being against the government, and having different political views.

I strongly object to more tools for the government to strip people of their rights with no due process.

lol fuck you, it is their business.

In Australia, only 600,000 firearms were confiscated after they declared certain types of guns illegal. They would have ripped all 2-3 million estimated, going door to door, out of the hands that bought them legally if they had a registration list like you're proposing, and like is currently illegal to create at the federal level.

A firearms registry is only good for confiscation. All people pushing for Australia-style gun control, especially those like President Obama and countless others who have praised Australia's gun control and say the USA needs to follow their examples are blatant gun grabbers. They want to confiscate guns. The only thing a gun registry is good for is confiscating guns.


According to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, which was passed with the provision of banning all new automatic weapons for civilian sale, a federal firearms registry CANNOT be created. This in the name of protecting firearm owners. Firearm owners' representatives compromised, and banned all new automatic weapons for sale.

Now people you are calling for more gun control and a registry. Are you going to repeal the part that stopped the registration of civilian machine guns, when you repeal the law that makes a firearm registry illegal? Or are you just going to keep banning and banning and regulating?

Gun control only goes one way. Once they ban something, they're not going to give rights back. There is no compromise with gun control. I see zero voices with any reach in media offering any sort of compromise. All I see is calls for more bans, with no regard to previous bans and compromises.

This is why gun owners don't compromise with "sensible legislation." The 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (which is only gone because it only passed with it expiring in 10 years), and countless smaller pieces of legislation. These were compromises. What compromise do gun control advocates offer now? Why weren't these enough? When will you have enough gun control?

I'll start coming to the debate table to compromise when you do something about the 1934 NFA and the 1968 GCA.

 

[The Dude]

Yeah sorry, but I believe those with BPD disorder should not have guns.

That's, like, your opinion, man. I've been stable for years, without medication. I've never been inclined to hurt anyone and I take my responsibility in owning firearms very seriously.

Big jump in logic there. How do you justify keeping track of cars but not of guns?

Owning firearms is a guaranteed right. It is outlined in the Bill of Rights and is second only to the right to free speech. It is the right that gives credible defense to all others. That is why the Framers added it. Owning and operating is not a right, it is a privilege. There is a difference. Also, vehicular deaths outweigh firearms deaths by a huge margin.

It was also written before we had semi auto weapons.

By that logic you only have the right to use quills, ink bottles, and printing presses that take up a whole room. The Second Amendment was meant so that any able-bodied person could be armed equally to any soldier. That is the meaning behind the word "militia". Benjamin Franklin owned artillery pieces and lent them out to the local militia to defend Boston. The M16/AR15 and rifles of that type ARE the modern musket. Not only that, but the Supreme Court has ruled that US citizens do have a right to own modern firearms for self defense, particularly those in common usage. And seeing as how semi-automatic rifles like the AR15 outsell all other firearm types nearly 20:1, I'd say they are in "common usage" and therefore ownership of them IS protected under the Second Amendment. If you want to really get down to it, sawed off shotguns were deemed legal to regulate by the government because the Supreme Court ruled several decades ago that the Second Amendment really only applied to being able to own firearms suitable for use by the military, and since the military at that time did not use short barreled shotguns the government could impose restrictions on their ownership. So the fact that I cannot buy a fully automatic rifle, sub machine gun, or belt fed machine gun made and registered as civilian transferable before May of 1986 (legal to own by civilians, so long as they sent paperwork to the ATF and pay a $200 tax) violates the Second Amendment. So the argument that "the Second Amendment only applies to muskets" has no merit.

lol fuck you, it is their business.

LOL, fuck you. No it isn't. If it was their business the Federal Government would have been keeping those kinds of records since the founding of this country. The Framers knew it was none of their business and had no right to such knowledge because the British did that kind of shit and started trying to confiscate people's weapons, which is part of what kickstarted the American Revolution. History, bro. There is a reason the Framers wrote the Bill of Rights. It isn't some arbitrary thing the Framers felt they should ALLOW citizens to have. They knew that no one would go for a new government if their leaders were going to pull the same shit as the old one (censorship, confiscations of arms, taxation without representation, forced housing of the military, etc.) The Bill of Rights was the Framers way of showing the People that they recognized their inalienable rights and liberties and promised not to fuck with them. So no, it is no one's business or right to know what kinds of firearms I own, ESPECIALLY the Federal Government.

@Shugo not to mention that the 1986 act was tacked onto another unrelated bill and was voted on when most of Congress was away on vacation. It was done quietly almost literally under the cover of night without debate. It was one of the Democrats most underhanded plays and it's legitimacy should really be reevaluated.

 

[nad7155]

I take my responsibility in owning firearms very seriously.

This.

I have not read this thread but I already know the contents by skimming the last page.

Ban guns, people will use knives.

Ban knives people will use tire irons.

Bans tire irons, people will use kettlebells.

Ad infinitum.

 

[AnOminous]

Outlaw Kettlebells!

 

[The Dude]

This.

I have not read this thread but I already know the contents by skimming the last page.

Ban guns, people will use knives.

Ban knives people will use tire irons.

Bans tire irons, people will use kettlebells.

Ad infinitum.

Hell, knives and bludgeoning instruments like hammers and baseball bats are used in homicides far more often than firearms of all types, but no one is screaming for steak knives and screwdrivers to be banned. No, they want to ban a class of firearms that accounts for less than 3% of ALL firearms related deaths, not just homicides (semi-automatic, military style rifles like the AR15). Yes, firearms like this have been used in a handful of high profile shootings, but that is no reason to prohibit millions of law abiding citizens who have not hurt, and never will hurt, anyone. It all boils down to they're scary looking and certain politicians say they're bad.

 

[Shokew]

This.

I have not read this thread but I already know the contents by skimming the last page.

Ban guns, people will use knives.

Ban knives people will use tire irons.

Bans tire irons, people will use kettlebells.

Ad infinitum.

So much common sense here - we should be using stuffed animals for violent purposes, instead.

 

[Catgirls are Love]

This.

I have not read this thread but I already know the contents by skimming the last page.

Ban guns, people will use knives.

Ban knives people will use tire irons.

Bans tire irons, people will use kettlebells.

Ad infinitum.

Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.

 

[Shugo]

Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.

See: Mexico, where people abused, murdered, and intimidated by the cartel arm themselves and fight back, only to have the government demand them put down their arms and arrest them.

 

[AnOminous]

Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.

Outlaw murder and only outlaws will murder people.

 

[RIck Sanchez]

Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.

Outlaw guns, and people will still get guns (and that's OK). Australia's gun ownership has increased over 37,000 since the 1996 gun ban. And their homicide rate -- which was on a downward trend even before gun control was enacted -- is lower than ever. Gun control in Australia didn't have a significant effect on homicide rates.

Neither did gun control in the UK.

Or in Ireland. Or Jamaica.

New Zealand and Australia both had multiple mass shootings (defined as a shooting that took the lives of 4+ people) during the 90s. Australia restricted guns, New Zealand didn't. The interesting thing to note in the graph below is that Australia banned semi-automatic weapons and NZ didn't. Neither country has experienced a mass shooting since then. New Zealand got the same results as Australia without really doing anything.

It's almost like gun control doesn't significantly affect murder rates. But it's a lot easier for politicians to push gun control than it is to acknowledge the causes of violence (lack of socioeconomic opportunities and education) and offer real solutions.

 

[Vitriol]

Gun control in the uk came in much earlier. The 1997 act was a ban on pistols. The stats are also misleading as gun ownership has greatly increased in the uk since 1997.

The usa has 4x higher murder rate than the uk and the numbers are similiar with aus, nz and ireland.

Granted i think that is a consequence of guns in circulation and not solvable by gun control on its own for the reasons mentioned in this thread- but to imply that there is no correlation between the availiability of firearms and the murder rate is imo misleading.

 

[Shugo]

The usa has 4x higher murder rate than the uk

However, the US murder rate was still significantly higher before the UK put harsh restrictions on owning guns, and the US murder rate dropped with the UK's despite not having draconian gun laws, and it dropped with Australia, NZ, Canada most of the developed world.

See how Canada's homicide rate fell at the same rate as the USA's. Violent crime is down from the 1980s and 90s in every developed country in the world.

The main issue I have with gun control components is they say "Look at the UK/Australia/etc: they 'banned' guns and now their murder rate is lower!" when it was lower before any such ban and went down by roughly the same percentage.

 

[Splendid]

Gun control in the uk came in much earlier. The 1997 act was a ban on pistols. The stats are also misleading as gun ownership has greatly increased in the uk since 1997.

The usa has 4x higher murder rate than the uk and the numbers are similiar with aus, nz and ireland.

Granted i think that is a consequence of guns in circulation and not solvable by gun control on its own for the reasons mentioned in this thread- but to imply that there is no correlation between the availiability of firearms and the murder rate is imo misleading.

It's been widely proven that there is no relationship between gun laws and homicide rate in the US. Some of the strictest jurisdictions have the highest murder rates.

Another thing: if white America was a country, it would have European levels of gun violence. Ditto for upper and middle class America. Almost all of our gun violence is comes from gangbangers and drug dealers offing each other in minority majority neighborhoods, which are usually poor. These gangs are much more influential in poor communities than they are in most countries. This is a social problem primarily caused by poor schooling and the prison industrial complex. The fact that most government intervention plans have been very poorly thought out and that they tend to encourage the poor to congregate in huge cities with high costs of living instead of places where relatively unskilled labor might be more valued is also a major contributing factor.

 

[Shugo]

Another thing: if white America was a country, it would have European levels of gun violence. Ditto for upper and middle class America.

Over half of all known homicides, the perpetrator is black, despite blacks making up 14% of the US population.

 

[Vitriol]

It's been widely proven that there is no relationship between gun laws and homicide rate in the US. Some of the strictest jurisdictions have the highest murder rates.

Possibly because guns are easily and cheaply availiable in the us regardless of legality- which imo is the largest difference.

The uk put in gun control before the late 60s modern crime spike- so comparisons with pre control uk are largely unhelpful- it was a far more regimented culture coming out of two culturally traumatic world wars and doesnt make for a good control.

I take your point about gang culture being the route of the problem and i agree with you (i did say i dont think gun control is the answer) but i think its foolish to deny a link between lots of cheap firearms and shootings. In the uk gangs also have guns however use them less because of economic pressure.

im not sure that white america does have the same gun crime as europe- we dont have school shootings here. Also in the uk we also have a ~15% ethnic population which also has problems with gangs and violence and yet not gun crime.

I think the problem is clear- what i dont think is clear at all is the solution, for which i dont have an answer.

 

[Splendid]

Don't even bring up school shootings. They statistically cause a negligible number of deaths. Worrying about them is like seriously worrying that you will personally be the victim of a terrorist attack. It might be scary, but it's not rational.

 

[Vitriol]

Don't even bring up school shootings. They statistically cause a negligible number of deaths. Worrying about them is like seriously worrying that you will personally be the victim of a terrorist attack. It might be scary, but it's not rational.

A negligible problem that does not exist elsewhere.

I looked into the gun deaths by race thing. The UK has 0.23 deaths per 100k pop per year.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

There isnt a single us state where white gun deaths per 100K are anything like as low.
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-by-raceethnicity/

Those numbers are pretty horrible, there is clearly a problem and while it may be worse in the black community it is not confined there.

The US in 2010 had a higher gun death per head of pop figure than south Africa. That is not a system that is working imo.

 

[Splendid]

The US in 2010 had a higher gun death per head of pop figure than south Africa. That is not a system that is working imo.

Like I said, it's been proven that the guns have nothing to do with the problem. Criminals simply ignore laws. Getting rid of gangs by transitioning to a reform based prison system and dismantling the prison industrial complex and improving our schools (primarily by weakening teachers' unions and introducing things like charter schools to the public school system while using federal grants to encourage certain states to consolidate their higher education systems to lower tuition) is what will actually solve our problems.
We should also legalize most, if not all drugs for personal use, and all drugs that do not have any addictive potential should be legal to possess in quantities large enough to distribute.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

weakening teachers' unions and introducing things like charter schools to the public school system

How does this help at all. These are the things that people always talk about being bad

 

[RIck Sanchez]

How does this help at all. These are the things that people always talk about being bad

Well, teacher's unions are the thing protecting shitty teachers from getting fired (tenure). When was the last time you heard of a teacher getting fired? Charter schools (and full private schools) seem to be more effective than public schools, mainly because the public school system here is a fuckin' mess.