Study shows gun control would prevent mass shootings

[Sanshain]

How are people supposed to shoot intruders if their guns are locked up and disabled?

I don't think that the risk a firearm brings to the average household justifies it's use in home defense at all. Firearms always up the ante of a situation. If you get mugged in the street and both you and your mugger have a gun, drawing on him is most likely going to end up with one of you dead. A basic rule of gun handling is that if you draw it on somebody, you're planning on shooting them. There is no such thing as 'shooting to wound' or 'warning shots'. I'd much rather be robbed or burgled and live to testify against the person who did so than know that if an intruder enters my home, only one of us will be walking out again.

 

[Watcher]

Spoiler

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Spoiler

View attachment 47935

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/reinwald.asp

 

[Dudeofteenage]

In the Constitutional sense, yes.

Well, yes, obviously. The question is, is the Constitution correct on this point?

 

[AnOminous]

Well, yes, obviously. The question is, is the Constitution correct on this point?

Does it matter? Outside of a framework where laws are actually enforced, do rights even have a meaning?

If you mean in some abstract sense, the right to arms may not be, itself, a fundamental right, but it protects a fundamental right, the right to self-defense. Pretty much any human legal system worthy of the name recognizes this right to some degree. Until and unless governments are perfect in protecting all people, the government's theoretical monopoly on the use of force will have to admit exceptions.

Currently, the most practical and reasonable self-defense weapons are things like knives, clubs, shotguns, rifles, and handguns.

I think even those for arms ownership as an "absolute" right would admit that personal nuclear weapons and the like do not qualify.

But unless the weapons available do, in fact, actually allow a reasonable level of force to respond to the kind of weapons one is likely actually to encounter and be endangered by, the right of self-defense is an empty promise.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Does it matter?

If people are going to defend their right to bear arms on the basis that it's a fundamental right, then the question of whether or not it actually is fundamental seems relevant. I realise there are other defenses for that right, but I'm not going to make gun advocates' arguments for them.

 

[The Dude]

In Texas, perhaps the biggest concealed carry state, those tests are a joke.


No, the ones that controversial are assault weapons: those designed to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time.

And those are the weapons used in the least amount of homicides. Studies done by the FBI and Centers for Disease Control have shown that military styled firearms, or "assault weapons", are used in less than 4% of ALL firearms related deaths. Not just homicides, but suicides, accidental death, and self defense. I'm on my phone right now, or else I'd link to the studies, but I'm sure those of you interested can do a simple Google search for "FBI CDC assault weapons" to see for yourselves. Also, another recent study has also shown that there is no epidemic of mass shootings, or that they are a recent thing. The murder rates in the US are actually going down.

I was raised around firearms. When I was a kid they didn't have gun safes. I had easy access to all of my Dad's firearms growing up. But I was raised to respect them for the potentially dangerous thing that they are. The main contributing factors to recent shootings are a lack of involved parenting, mental health issues, and the media sensationalizing every shooting. They make household names out of these shooters. That spawns copycats because many of these spree shooters are craving attention. They feel that the world doesn't notice them, so they decide to kill a bunch of people to punish society and to get the recognition they crave.

I have issues with tying background checks to mental health records. For one its an invasion of privacy and doctor/patient confidentiality. And for another I think it's a system that can be abused. What if the doctor is anti-gun and decides to tell the authorities that you're dangerous? What defines a dangerous person? Is it someone with schizophrenia, or is it someone who goes to their therapist because they're depressed and thinking about suicide occasionally? Who sets the standards for who is considered dangerous? What statutes of limitations will be in place? If I go to the therapist because I have depression am I barred from owning firearms for the rest of my life? I think if you tie mental health records into the gun buying process you'll just see a lot of people who want to own firearms stop going to mental health professionals once that law is enacted, especially if it is a vaguely defined law.

 

[Vitriol]

I have deleted a single word reply, going forward can we avoid these especially when there are ample points that could be responded to more fully.

This is a discussion forum- i won't censor opinion but i would ask that you justify and explain your opinions and not just tell others to 'stahp'.

 

[Marvin]

And those are the weapons used in the least amount of homicides. Studies done by the FBI and Centers for Disease Control have shown that military styled firearms, or "assault weapons", are used in less than 4% of ALL firearms related deaths.

It's not just the number of overall gun deaths, so much as gun deaths, compared to the cost of reforming the laws. Even if only a small number of people are at risk, if the regulation is cheap enough to implement, then it's a net win.

I have issues with tying background checks to mental health records. For one its an invasion of privacy and doctor/patient confidentiality.

Doctor/patient confidentiality isn't an inviolable right. It's important, but there's definitely important exceptions, like if you're going to harm yourself or someone else. Using mental health records to weed out inappropriate gun sales is an obvious exception.

And for another I think it's a system that can be abused. What if the doctor is anti-gun and decides to tell the authorities that you're dangerous?

Then he's violating professional responsibility. What if a doctor is a teetotaler and testifies against you in a DUI case?

The system for dealing with these issues exists, it consists of ethical standards set by the state medical board.

What defines a dangerous person? Is it someone with schizophrenia, or is it someone who goes to their therapist because they're depressed and thinking about suicide occasionally? Who sets the standards for who is considered dangerous? What statutes of limitations will be in place? If I go to the therapist because I have depression am I barred from owning firearms for the rest of my life?

I don't know what those definitions are. There should be some well defined standards for who's barred from buying a gun.

I think if you tie mental health records into the gun buying process you'll just see a lot of people who want to own firearms stop going to mental health professionals once that law is enacted, especially if it is a vaguely defined law.

All that tells me is that these people are goofy as fuck.

 

[dickwad]

I don't think the weapons are the main reason for mass shootings. The society is at fault. I live in a Nordic country where we have, to a contrary, a lot of weapons including ar-15 and ak's. In Finland, 2010, there were 3,64 (to 100 000 persons) deaths with a gun. 3.34 were suicides and the rest (0.26) were homicides. Now if we were to ban all guns would those 3.34 persons not killed them selves. If there is a will there is a way. We do have gun control but it does have faults. Example you need to prove that you're not a crazy person which by it self is kind of weird. By standards you are evil and not good enough to buy a .22 pistol.

In 2002 there was a crazy person who wanted to do evil. He applied for a gun and didn't get it. The next thing he did was to build a bomb and became a suicide bomber. He blew him self up in a shopping center where 7 died and 160 were injured.

Also what about making guns? There were big news about 3d printing guns but I don't really see that as a way to make firearm. You need a drill, files and few common tools to make a swedish K-type of open bolt smg from pipes and sheet metal. The smg might not have rifling inside the barrel but still a deadly weapon.

My horror image is still this: A guy with some common knowledge, average .308 rifle and street knowledge. Some sort of ghetto sniper who takes one shot from 500 meters away and just repeats after a week. How about guy who is a ex sniper armed with Tikka t3 with suppressor and subsonic ammunition or Sako TRG-44 and does his deed from 1,5km away. How long will it take to find his firing position from the shot and how hard it is to track him down if the guy has played his cards right.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

My horror image is still this: A guy with some common knowledge, average .308 rifle and street knowledge. Some sort of ghetto sniper who takes one shot from 500 meters away and just repeats after a week. How about guy who is a ex sniper armed with Tikka t3 with suppressor and subsonic ammunition or Sako TRG-44 and does his deed from 1,5km away.

Do you remember the Washington sniper?

 

[The Master Debater]

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-and-crime-prevention/

 

[The Master Debater]

Does it matter? Outside of a framework where laws are actually enforced, do rights even have a meaning?

If you mean in some abstract sense, the right to arms may not be, itself, a fundamental right, but it protects a fundamental right, the right to self-defense. Pretty much any human legal system worthy of the name recognizes this right to some degree. Until and unless governments are perfect in protecting all people, the government's theoretical monopoly on the use of force will have to admit exceptions.

Currently, the most practical and reasonable self-defense weapons are things like knives, clubs, shotguns, rifles, and handguns.

I think even those for arms ownership as an "absolute" right would admit that personal nuclear weapons and the like do not qualify.

But unless the weapons available do, in fact, actually allow a reasonable level of force to respond to the kind of weapons one is likely actually to encounter and be endangered by, the right of self-defense is an empty promise.

The 2nd Amendment is the only thing that allows us our rights. Also, thanks for the dumb ratings. Why not join the discussion?

The right to bear arms is our only defense against tyranny.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

The right to bear arms is our only defense against tyranny.

So why is it that countries without that right aren't tyrannies? Good luck?

 

[chimpburgers]

The 2nd Amendment is the only thing that allows us our rights. Also, thanks for the dumb ratings. Why not join the discussion?

The right to bear arms is our only defense against tyranny.

It is of my opinion that no matter what, the oppressed are always going to find ways to rise up to the oppressor, arms or not. It's been this way for centuries even before hand guns were invented. I also think that perspective is limited and doesn't take account for all the other important amendments and rights that we have.

 

[The Master Debater]

So why is it that countries without that right aren't tyrannies? Good luck?

The right to self defence and the right to bear arms are rights available in the USA. Look at Britain:

• Cameras on every corner
• PC is taken to its extreme
• They're destroying their culture

I remember reading about a guy getting arrested for Kung Fu Fighting.
Not really a rebuttal but there you go.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

The right to self defence and the right to bear arms are rights available in the USA. Look at Britain:

• Cameras on every corner
• PC is taken to its extreme
• They're destroying their culture

I remember reading about a guy getting arrested for Kung Fu Fighting.
Not really a rebuttal but there you go.

If your idea of "tyranny" is modern Britain then I don't really know what to say to you.

 

[The Master Debater]

If your idea of "tyranny" is modern Britain then I don't really know what to say to you.

Then don't say anything. I wasn't implying that people without that right are in tyranny. I'm implying that the right to bear arms is what makes America my home. It's why we haven't fallen into socialism and had our guns taken away

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Then don't say anything. I wasn't implying that people without that right are in tyranny. I'm implying that the right to bear arms is what makes America my home. It's why we haven't fallen into socialism and had our guns taken away

That's all fine and dandy but holding up gun-lite societies as some kind of worst-case-scenario that must be avoided is a bit hard to sympathise for those of us who've lived in them all our lives.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

I'm just saying, after living in America for so long it seems like most of the Eurozone is going to hell.

Might I suggest that you might not be getting your information about the Eurozone from reliable, unbiased sources?

(For example, the UK isn't part of it)