I'm afraid of guns. I think they're frighteningly powerful tools for acts of violence and the thought of unstable people possessing them makes me scared.
Therefore, I think that it should be harder to get guns because I think that buckling down on access will mitigate injury and fatality from violent crime. Change my mind
Other urls found in this thread:
academic.oup.com
twitter.com
People who hold conceal carry permits have a lower crime rate than police officers. Lawful gun owners are not the problem. The majority of guns used in crimes are already purchased illegally so much of the legislation you'd likely propose would have no effect.
Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, the conclusion being that the gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia. academic.oup.com
So what is your solution to the mass shooting / gun violence epidemic in the US?
Mental health intervention or something like that?
No citizen is obligated to live their life so that you have less paranoia. If you attempt to violate my rights by takeing my weapons from me, I will punish you and any group that advocates for gun grabbing.
Stop creating areas full of soft targets.
Arizona has incredibly liberal (in the actual sense, of liberty) gun lawns and still has a lower rate of "gun violence" (2.5 deaths per thousand in 2015) than its neighbor California (3.3 deaths per thousand in 2015), even though california has extremely restrictive gun laws. The laws don't do a damn thing.
Why is "gun violence" its own thing? Violence is violence.
For one, stop publicizing and sensationalizing them to the degree that media companies do now. These are a few of the recommendations of Park Dietz, who coined the term 'pseudocommando', which is what is used in forensic psychiatry literature to describe mass shooters.
Similar things have been done with good results with certain isolated suicide mini-epidemics in Italy and Japan.
I won't attempt to take your guns. If you're a stable, law-abiding citizen with no history of violent crime, I think it's OK for you to have them. Otherwise I think it's a risk to society
if you're scared maybe you should get a gun pew pew
Firearms are a potent tool for violent individuals to increase the severity of their crimes. Violent people who intend to harm would, on average, inflict less harm if they didn't have a firearm
Cars are significantly more likely to kill you than guns. Ban cars, and then we can talk about guns.
Yeah, honestly, this is my sole motivation for considering owning a gun - to protect myself from criminals with guns
Guns are designed as weapons, cars are designed as automobiles. Sure, both have the capacity to be used outside of their intended purpose, but people are more likely to PURPOSEFULLY exploit the function of a gun than a car
but the reality is someone who is going to commit an illegal act with a firearm will not care if the firearm is illegal. All gun control does is disable the person who is not going to commit an illegal act with a gun from being able to protect himself from the bad guy with the gun.
This logic does seem good to me. I buy these arguments
Also, i'm curious. What proportion of violence is perpetrated by firearms?
Tell that to Europe. They make guns harder to get, and terrorists attack people with cars and trucks.
I do understand the unfortunate implications for law-abiding gun owners. But theoretically, even under stricter control, they wouldn't have any trouble getting/retaining their guns because they're law-abiding.
Is there any evidence that strict gun control has no effect on violent criminals obtaining guns?
>Therefore, I think that it should be harder to get guns because I think that buckling down on access will mitigate injury and fatality from violent crime.
The number of guns per capita does not correlate in any significant way with violent crime rates. But the number of niggers per capita definitely does.
I live in Vermont, where the household gun ownership rate is sky high - but we have a completely negligible rate of gun violence. Hmmmmmm....what is it about Vermont that could possibly lead to high gun ownership but no violent crime? Hmmmmm what could it be, what could it be?
There are usually many arrests in the UK news for people who have had firearms and it wasnt all too long ago that Raoul Moat and Derek Bird both had firearms
No, you think it's a risk to YOU. If you cared about society, you would want as many people to be armed as possible so as to each person was individually responsible for their security. Instead, you're ruled by fear of the hypothetical, are unwilling to take the steps to protect yourself on an individual level, and you want to hamstring others because you don't want to take responsibility for your own life. You would rather have men in uniforms who are pair with the tax dollars of others to protect you, when in reality you're more likely to get assaulted by a police officer than shot in a random situation.
Well, let's think about this for a second. Drugs are illegal. High school students can still easily get whatever drug they want from their friendly neighborhood dealer. Why do you think that strict gun control would make it any harder for a violent criminal to get a gun than it currently is for a stoner to get weed?
>Is there any evidence that strict gun control has no effect on violent criminals obtaining guns?
The unavoidable statistical fact that there is more gun violence in urban areas with very strict gun control.
>Violent people who intend to harm would, on average, inflict less harm if they didn't have a firearm
Possibly true. I'd say there's a reason why mass spree killers prefer guns or bombs, but the vast majority of murders are not random mass killings , they're personal affairs or gang things.
In the first category, the perpetrator is likely to use whatever is most convenient at the moment, so you can't really lower that by changing gun access.
In the second category, they're already avoiding the law and in the business of doing so, so they'll find ways around that too.
Spree killings are not statistically all that common.
Even most school shootings are personal things, not random things. Paddocks, Rodgers, and Lanzas are not very common.
>I think that buckling down on access will mitigate injury and fatality from violent crime
This is where you are wrong. If people are criminals, they will get guns whether they are legal or not. It's ridiculously easy to get guns illegally, hell you can 3d print them. Even if it worked there would still be violence just with knives and other weapons like improvised explosives. All this does is remove the people's ability to defend themselves.
Gun control laws do nothing to reduce violent crime and homicide rates. Even in Australia, a literal island nation where weapon confiscation could be easily enforced, their gun ban did nothing to affect homicide rates. Sure, their gun violence numbers went down, but their homicide and violent crime rates weren't dented.
Strict gun control doesn't do anything to stop people who want to fuck other people up. 2 pipes and a nail will make a slamfire shotgun that'll blow someone's head off.
Is the incidence of automobile violence in Eur. the same, more, or less than the incidence of gun violence in the US? Are the rates comparable?
I do agree with you that higher impoverished African American population = higher crime rate and gun violence. Poor blacks just can't control themselves most of the time
Everyone having guns is almost the same as no one having guns but worse. It's the same principle, everyone on an equal playing field, except arming everyone allows for disparities in motor skill, tactical skill, ability/disability... so it's not a level playing field
Bad people will get guns. But what harm would stricter laws do to law-abiding citizens? If you're having a hard time getting a gun, then you probably shouldn't have one. And I think it would filter out those who have a predisposition to commit gun violence, like felons
I am afraid of niggers. I think we need laws to address the easy access to niggers.
I redirect you to Arizona gun violence rate: 2.5 deaths per thousand
California gun violence rate 3.3 deaths per thousand
The gun laws in each state are practically opposite, Arizona being very very liberal, California being very very restrictive. California still manages to have more gun violence than Arizona even with all their laws and restrictions.
All California gun laws have managed to do is create new and bizarre forms of AR-15s that fit inside the laws.
Go get your own gun
You'll find it really isn't as easy to get one as they make it out to be and maybe if you do some target shooting you won't be so afraid
Bad people will get guns no matter what you do. All you can do is make it more difficult for good people. And who are you to decide who's good? Who exactly would you ban from getting guns, and why? Keep in mind that the right to bear arms is enshrined in our constitution. If you can take away one constitutional right on a whim, what's stopping you from taking away others?
Gun violence and mass shootings are a SYMPTOM of a sick society.
Taking away guns is like giving out pain pills and calling it cured instead of figuring out why there's pain in the first place.
>But what harm would stricter laws do to law-abiding citizens?
that depends on the laws. I've heard it a thousand times before "we need stricter laws" but these laws are never proposed or elaborated upon.
>except arming everyone allows for disparities in motor skill, tactical skill, ability/disability... so it's not a level playing field
So it's a meritocracy? How is this a bad thing? Besides these differences are minuscule, in what circumstances will they realistically affect pulling out a gun and pulling the trigger?
>But what harm would stricter laws do to law-abiding citizens?
Less access to tools to defend themselves for one.
>If you're having a hard time getting a gun, then you probably shouldn't have one
So criminals should have guns?
>And I think it would filter out those who have a predisposition to commit gun violence, like felons
It would just make it more of a pain for people who should have them, and piss off people who are law abiding but discriminated for whatever reason.
Yeah I agree with you that spree killings will probably occur regardless, but it's harder to make a bomb than to grab a gun.
Also why don't these things happen at the same rate in other countries?
>All this does is remove the people's ability to defend themselves
No, if you are a lawful citizen with no record, then you'll still have no problem obtaining guns for defense
What causes picked up the slack towards maintaining the homicide and violent crime rates?
what like the grocery store?
I acknowledge that bad people will get guns regardless of the laws. I concede that. So then what the fuck is the solution? Besides just not talking about it, as says?
Is there a solution or are we just fucked and we just have to accept people dying at the hands of these killing machines?
Why wouldn't the world be better if guns had never been invented?
So then what the fuck is the solution?
I don't know. I don't think there will ever be a silver bullet as gun crimes are a symptom of a sick society, but gun banning does nothing so it's not worth considering, neither is a police state. Research into other possible solutions should be taken. We need to take time to fully understand what makes these people tick, how to spot them early, prevention, a support network, ect. These things take a lot of time and effort, but if we take short gap solutions and villainize the perpetrators it's just going to make things worse.
>Why wouldn't the world be better if guns had never been invented?
They are useful tools.
>meritocracy
meritocracies are bad because certain aspects of capability or ability are not able to be helped, improved, etc. Bascially if everyone has a gun and it's up to them to defend themselves, fuck disabled people, fuck fat/slow people, fuck those who are a little bit slower at drawing there gun... and suddenly the world turns into a big firearm training ground because people want to stay alive
>So criminals should have guns?
Idk where you got that from. no
Check out The sooner we as a society actually you to figure this shit out.
Unfortunately everything will instantly be politicized making the whole process infinitely more difficult
Useful for what these days? Besides killing or defending from being killed?
wrong board
take this shit to Jow Forums
>Also why don't these things happen at the same rate in other countries?
Culture, people.
I mean Mexico has really strict gun laws, more strict than the most strict state in the USA, and still have much more gun violence, and violence in general.
You can't really compare the conditions in say, Switzerland (.54 murders per 100k) or Spain (.63 murders per 100k) to Detroit (39.69 murders per 100k).
>what is the solution
For so called "gun violence"? Or for violence in general?
>Besides killing or defending from being killed?
That's pretty damn useful.
>fuck disabled people, fuck fat/slow people, fuck those who are a little bit slower at drawing there gun.
So, people that would be completely unaffected either way since even with stricter gun laws they can't defend themselves from gun wielding criminals anyway?
>Idk where you got that from. no
The statement: If you're having a hard time getting a gun, then you probably shouldn't have one
Criminals don't have a hard time getting a gun.
This is interesting, though. Much better than sissy thread #355824859642 or endless porn spam or FEMBOT HEAR TEEHEE UWU
>Useful for what these days? Besides killing or defending from being killed?
You say that as if these aren't relevant concerns in modern society.
I'm signing off. You guys convinced me that bad people will get guns regardless
And I'm convinced that the systemic societal problems are a bigger deal than the legislation.
But I still don't see why innocent lawful people should be afraid of stricter laws for obtaining guns, because they'll still be able to obtain their guns if they're clean.
Guns should not be outlawed but they SHOULD be hard to get because they are DANGEROUS.That's what I'm still not convinced about
It just seems like you all are content to sit around, watch the bullets fly, and cling onto your guns, alongside your egos, without bothering to consider how the tool might be the part of the problem
>meritocracies are bad because certain aspects of capability or ability are not able to be helped, improved, etc. Bascially if everyone has a gun and it's up to them to defend themselves, fuck disabled people, fuck fat/slow people, fuck those who are a little bit slower at drawing there gun... and suddenly the world turns into a big firearm training ground because people want to stay alive
Bro it's not like everyone is going to start shooting each other just because they can.
>without bothering to consider how the tool might be the part of the problem
So just because a truck of peace runs over some people nobody can drive trucks? Your logic is flawed.
>But I still don't see why innocent lawful people should be afraid of stricter laws for obtaining guns
because You say you want it to be harder, but where is the line drawn? We can't debate unless a clear line is drawn.
the NRA literally tries to make guns easier to obtain by everyone, including felons and the mentally ill
you're never going to talk sense into these brainwashed gun fetishists
Why should felons or the mentally ill lose their constitutional rights?
>watch the bullets fly
I have never in my life seen or heard a bullet fired in anger, and I live in the state with the most liberal gun laws in the country, probably the world. You are just making shit up.
Also, everyone has a natural right to property. Not a positive right, but property that they have been gifted, inherited, homesteaded, etc. The government has no right to that property no matter how dangerous it may be. Are we to ban trucks because they can be used to kill people? Are we to ban cups, because enough brute force can do damage to an individual? How about fists.
The reason this right does not extend to nuclear weapons, is because nuclear weapons are dumb (as in inaccurate) that have lots of collateral damage and cannot be used in self-defense, only to kill innocents in very large amounts as collateral.
>Felons
Depending on the crime I can agree
>mentally ill
Depending on the illness I can agree
>cannot be used in self-defense
IDK, MAD seems like a pretty good self defense measure.
Not that guy, but if a guy can't be trusted to return to society, why are they being released at all? If they did something so severe that we genuinely believe that this man is likely to commit another violent crime, why not just put him down?
>we don't need more gun laws, we need to address the mental illness problem!
>why wouldn't we just arm all the mentally ill people lol?
fuck's sake you people are retards
>Say some
>You interpret it as all
Okay retard
>why not just put him down?
1) Not all states enforce the death penalty
2) It would be considered racism of the highest degree to kill so many black people.
>Are we to ban trucks because they can be used to kill people? Are we to ban cups, because enough brute force can do damage to an individual?
Shit argument. What is the main function of these? Now what is the main function of a gun? Obviously anything can be a weapon, but it'd be unreasonable to ban, say, trucks , for they're useful in transport, making it a "risk worth taking ". Also pretty retarded comparison, since it's legally and practically easier to get a gun than a vehicle in the US.
Not going to address the ancap bullshit since no one irl would even mention that.
>"depending on the illness" means all
you do know that not all mental illnesses are psychopathy right?
Same for felonies, you can get a felony for embezzlement, cheating while gambling, or for having weed on you. Some stoner kid that got caught with an ounce of weed is not the same as a Blood with 5 homicides under his belt.
Desu if the only way you can make arguments is by purposefully obfuscating and making generalizations, then pls stop. You have nothing.
>1) Not all states enforce the death penalty
Not only should they all, but actually purposefully violent crimes should be punished with death.
>The government has no right to that property no matter how dangerous it may be.
Yes they are it's why drugs are illegal, they do more harm then good
its a proven fact that OPs are fags
fags are prone to aids
aids will slowly kill you
then when can't get a gun to end it all you'll change your mind
The number of gun murders in America is low ~10,000 compared to car crashes >30,000 and suicides >40,000. You are unlikely to get shot.
>change my mind
It's easy to change one's mind about guns. Look at Shuaiby - he held a gun and changed his mind forever.
Ahem. Just figured I'd swoop by and offer my pre-programmed response to your post OP.
"We don't live in the wild west anymore...
Nowadays we can just buy precision tools and build our own guns."
End default response.
it must be hard to accept the fact that you're responsible for your own protection from people who want to do you harm be it criminals, soldiers, foreign domestic, and that the second amendment also means that it is the people who are responsible for their rights as opposed to irresponsible pricks like you that want them taken away
>killing machines
this is some high level bait here pham.
>just be nice guys it's chill :)
This is a pol post. Or bait. Too boring and safe to tell
Confiscating the rightfully purchased property of an innocent person is a wrong act
When the powers that be (government and law) commit wrong acts and call it justice, it sets the dangerous precedent for the society those powers are ruling over
This dangerous precedent will be built upon, for example
>if we can restrict peoples gun ownership in the supposed interest of safety, why not cars as well, why not booze or knives or computers
>why not restrict other liberties, like reproduction and job opportunities
I posit to you it is better to live in a society that abides civilian gun ownership than one that sets the dangerous precedent of an
overreaching authoritarian government
>Everyone having guns is almost the same as no one having guns but worse. It's the same principle, everyone on an equal playing field, except arming everyone allows for disparities in motor skill, tactical skill, ability/disability... so it's not a level playing field
Rifles and pistols are what allow 100 lb. females the opportunity to defend themselves from 180 lb. Males. It's what allows 80 year old men to defend themselves against groups of thugs. It's what allows a single man to defend his family against a group of criminals. All that nonsense you mentioned about motor ability, skill, tactics, etc is only exaggerated by taking away weapons from citizens. Cripples, the elderly, the weak, and so on are only put at more risk, not less.
In your hypothetical scenario of taking away weapons, all it takes is for a person to be younger and stronger than his victim or to have a few buddies on his side and and they can attack any person they want. Knowing that every citizen has a weapon and can defend themself vastly deters crime. At the end of the day, YOU are responsible for safety, and no one else. Stop trying to force others to have the government be their protectors.
Mass shootings are getting deadlier as time goes on. Why do you think this is? AR15s have been around for decades so its not like guns are getting deadlier. Imo it is social media allowing mass shootings to spread literally as a meme, people see body count as almost a competition, and they plan the most elaborate attacks possible to cause the most death. If it werent for Columbine I bet a ton of the mass shootings we have had would never have occurred. It has become a social phenomenon. The more the media and public focus on them the more motivation there is for sick people to use this method to get famous.
I'm afraid of people like you being allowed to make decisions that affect an entire country because you're scared.
You dont see cocaine being legal, yet criminals steal have it dont they. If theyre willing to mass murder, they are willing to buy a gun that isnt legal
I can't change your mind
But I'll tell you right now, I'm going to acquire powerful weapons and use them on people who try to stop me
So go ahead and try, if you want to. I can't change your mind but I can put a bullet in it if you try to change mine
Massive increases in population with a decrease in allowance of self defense has lead to large collections of soft targets. Libraries, movie theaters, malls, concerts, etc.
it's already super hard to get guns, it should be opposite. Every house has a hammer, knives and all kind of chemicals that are far deadlier yet they are not an issue and can easily be obtained at any time for any reason. Gun is a tool just like everything else, the sooner you realize it the sooner it won't be an object of fear for you. Unlike hammer you pretty much will never use your gun in your lifetime besides practice shooting at the gun range.
>guy who is scared and doesnt understand something wants to control it
fuck off dude
>Why wouldn't the world be better if guns had never been invented?
would you rather people hack each other to death with oversized knives?
your kitchen knife is dangerous, your bleach is too, so is your antifreeze, how about electric wiring and portable heaters?
What does a gun do besides killing?
genocide all the niggers and in the long run the gun violence will be down
acquire food, provide recreation
>I think that it should be harder to get guns
How much harder? Why isn't it hard enough already? Is there a limit? Why should the potential power of an object dictate its availability?
protect you from rabbit animals and bad people
>acquire food
I live in a country in which guns are prohibited, yet there's an exception for those who can prove that they live off of hunting.
>recreation
Shooting for sports is safe and isn't illegal anywhere.
Crime prevention is way more complicated than just "give everyone a gun".
There's also just being interested in the engineering and appreciating designs. That's why gun models exist in places where they're illegal.
Put covert military operatives in hot spots (eg Chicago) and have them eliminate the threats as they happen. They have to be clandestine, no obvious uniforms or anything like that. Criminals will be too afraid to attack in case there are operatives in the area. Meanwhile, teach the citizens how to use weaponry properly to defend themselves.
As for school shootings, just stop bullying.
it works well in brazil and thailand. no mass shootings there and everyone is armed
Americans have an obssession with violence, guns and paranoia. I would too if every low EQ meathead was walking around with a big black dick extension. It feels good my country is safer and we don't glorify thugs and guns. Americans think guns make them safe. There's a reason Americans glorify low effort low iq behaviour like pointing guns at other people instaed of thing that require dedication or passion like art or science.
literally just gave you reasons other than just killing and you just move the goalposts again
Yes you can hunt deer and target shoot with a fucking AR by the way
I'm afraid of guns too, that's why I think we should all have them
you can hunt with it, or just shoot targets for fun and see how fast/accurate you can get
I mean hell, go shoot a washing machine all to shit in some field somewhere, you'll never ask dumb shit like this again
You gave two stupid reasons, barely anyone in this day and age hunts, and the few that do can be covered by legislations, and going to a shooting stand isn't the same as owning a gun. Regardless, the point was that it's not reasonable to compare guns and "dangerous" stuff like cars and wires (ffs), since these actually have important functions in our society other than just killing eachother.
>barely anyone in this day and age hunts,
that's more dangerous than all of the mass shootings we're having! If electricity disappears for next 3 months, 80% of population will die off. Cities are literal death traps aka Slaughter Houses
Do us all a favor and stay in whatever european hellhole you belong to while muhammad fucks your daughter
Some of us aren't willing to succumb to a bunch of pussies that are too sheltered to imagine that someone might need to defend their livelihood with more than a single shot break barrel shotgun with 5 rounds allocated by the government. If you took the time to step outside of your fucking bubble you'd see how people need these firearms for their protection at the very least.
The United States wouldn't exist if citizens didn't have guns you sperg. Then maybe you Euros would have to take money away from your welfare states and put it towards defense spending.
you are fucking retarded
fuck off and die
suck my dick
eat nigger turd
haha epic trolled style