Gun Control

[Canadian Mojo]

....

Also, killing sprees should say more about the lack of mental health services than the availability of guns.

Why couldn't it be about both.

And agian let me state, most homicides occur because of arguments.

It's possibly comforting to think that one has to have along and obvious history of mental illness before one decides to murder another (and many times that is the case).

Bu tit' s not true that is a prequisite.

Killing one person doesn't require being too far off of ones rocker. Deciding to take out your frustrations in a public school kind of does.

[Lt. Fred]

The simple fact is that regular gun massacres are a problem almost unique to the US, that mass gun ownership (also unique to the US) is the clear cause, that gun regulation would gradually reduce gun ownership and that people and politicians are scared to even talk about it in the immediate aftermath of a massacre of children caused by those unique circumstances because of the power of an American business lobby. Do not pretend the answers are not known, or that they are complex. The solution is unbelievably simple, you just won't enact it.

[rookie]

So what is the answer? Bear in mind there is not a way right now to make guns go away. If they stopped making guns right now as I type this, there are still millions of guns floating around the US.

[Lt. Fred]

So what is the answer? Bear in mind there is not a way right now to make guns go away. If they stopped making guns right now as I type this, there are still millions of guns floating around the US.

There absolutely is a way to make guns go away. Australia, for instance, used to have twice as many firearms as we currently do. Then we destroyed them all. With a halving of the number of guns (from 88 per 100 persons to 44 per 100 persons), gun crime would decline precipitously, as it did here.

[rookie]

There absolutely is a way to make guns go away. Australia, for instance, used to have twice as many firearms as we currently do. Then we destroyed them all. With a halving of the number of guns (from 88 per 100 persons to 44 per 100 persons), gun crime would decline precipitously, as it did here.

Voluntary compliance? Please excuse me while I chuckle sadly.

[Lt. Fred]

There absolutely is a way to make guns go away. Australia, for instance, used to have twice as many firearms as we currently do. Then we destroyed them all. With a halving of the number of guns (from 88 per 100 persons to 44 per 100 persons), gun crime would decline precipitously, as it did here.

Voluntary compliance? Please excuse me while I chuckle sadly.

Often involuntary, and effective in any case. Americans are hardly unique among all the world's people.

[Witchyjoshy]

What was that saying?

"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns"?

Bearing in mind, Australia is quite a bit smaller and less segmented than the USA is.

[dpareja]

There absolutely is a way to make guns go away. Australia, for instance, used to have twice as many firearms as we currently do. Then we destroyed them all. With a halving of the number of guns (from 88 per 100 persons to 44 per 100 persons), gun crime would decline precipitously, as it did here.

Voluntary compliance? Please excuse me while I chuckle sadly.

Often involuntary, and effective in any case. Americans are hardly unique among all the world's people.

So, who'll propose a repeal of the Second Amendment, then? (Or maybe a rewording to make it utterly plain that you can only keep and bear arms if you're part of a state militia.)

[Distind]

The simple fact is that regular gun massacres are a problem almost unique to the US, that mass gun ownership (also unique to the US) is the clear cause, that gun regulation would gradually reduce gun ownership and that people and politicians are scared to even talk about it in the immediate aftermath of a massacre of children caused by those unique circumstances because of the power of an American business lobby.

I'm waiting for the information to clear up, but frankly he might be completely right this time and for the most frustrating reasons possible.

A while back I was arguing with your standard pro-gun loons who think gun registration is a crime against the founding fathers. They didn't see any reason why the government should be interested in knowing who has guns, let alone my suggestions of required competence in their use and secure storage. Because from what I'm hearing(and this could be complete bunk) the gun control laws ALMOST worked. The guy couldn't get a gun himself. But his mother had them, so he took one, killed her, and went on this spree.

This is THE scenario that the true gun nuts claim they'd be ready for, someone taking their gun to harm them. But I doubt any of them figured what they'd do if it was family who did it.

Do not pretend the answers are not known, or that they are complex. The solution is unbelievably simple, you just won't enact it.

Unless your answer includes the phrase 'Carpet bombing' I think you're underestimating the number of issues your simple solution would cause in this country. For some people guns are just shy of a way of life, despite the complete lack of a need for one in most people's. If you've watched the main page you've seen the people who are now stockpiling guns and ammo like a second revolution is just waiting to happen. A unilateral ban would simply aggravate it to the point where those pricks would start shooting.

Which is to say, we have a fuckload of domestic terrorists who are winning quite handily.

[Sigmaleph]

What was that saying?

"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns"?

And cops. Cops will also have guns. And the military, they might need them.

Does anyone have stats on how often civilians with guns help prevent a crime? Honestly asking.

[Distind]

What was that saying?

"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns"?

And cops. Cops will also have guns. And the military, they might need them.

Does anyone have stats on how often civilians with guns help prevent a crime? Honestly asking.

Less likely than civilian hand guns being turned on their owners from what I remember.

Though some claim a deterrent factor that can obviously not be figured accurately. But when people tell me idiots don't realize that the death penalty should deter them from murder I doubt that guns are any more effective.

[Lt. Fred]

There absolutely is a way to make guns go away. Australia, for instance, used to have twice as many firearms as we currently do. Then we destroyed them all. With a halving of the number of guns (from 88 per 100 persons to 44 per 100 persons), gun crime would decline precipitously, as it did here.

Voluntary compliance? Please excuse me while I chuckle sadly.

Often involuntary, and effective in any case. Americans are hardly unique among all the world's people.

So, who'll propose a repeal of the Second Amendment, then? (Or maybe a rewording to make it utterly plain that you can only keep and bear arms if you're part of a state militia.)

I don't care. That's a political problem, not a moral or practical problem. It's also why active constitutions are a terrible idea.

What was that saying?

"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns"?

Bearing in mind, Australia is quite a bit smaller and less segmented than the USA is.

Nobody's quite been able to explain why there should naturally be more guns deaths per capita in a large country than a small one.

The simple fact is that regular gun massacres are a problem almost unique to the US, that mass gun ownership (also unique to the US) is the clear cause, that gun regulation would gradually reduce gun ownership and that people and politicians are scared to even talk about it in the immediate aftermath of a massacre of children caused by those unique circumstances because of the power of an American business lobby.

Because from what I'm hearing(and this could be complete bunk) the gun control laws ALMOST worked. The guy couldn't get a gun himself. But his mother had them, so he took one, killed her, and went on this spree.

The mother would not have had a gun to be stolen in any other country on Earth.

Unless your answer includes the phrase 'Carpet bombing' I think you're underestimating the number of issues your simple solution would cause in this country. For some people guns are just shy of a way of life, despite the complete lack of a need for one in most people's. If you've watched the main page you've seen the people who are now stockpiling guns and ammo like a second revolution is just waiting to happen. A unilateral ban would simply aggravate it to the point where those pricks would start shooting.

Political problems, not practical ones. Frankly, if idiots start shooting when a majority of citizens enact commonsense best-practice gun laws, have the army shoot them.

[Distind]

Unless your answer includes the phrase 'Carpet bombing' I think you're underestimating the number of issues your simple solution would cause in this country. For some people guns are just shy of a way of life, despite the complete lack of a need for one in most people's. If you've watched the main page you've seen the people who are now stockpiling guns and ammo like a second revolution is just waiting to happen. A unilateral ban would simply aggravate it to the point where those pricks would start shooting.

Political problems, not practical ones. Frankly, if idiots start shooting when a majority of citizens enact commonsense best-practice gun laws, have the army shoot them.

So your solution amounts to military exersizes through out our own country? You're aware there are groups in our military dedicated to keeping that from happening right? Wing nuts who claim they'll defend the consitution rather than folow orders?

Toss the UN in and the entirely of Above Top Secret would explode with joy over having been proven right.

[erictheblue]

So, who'll propose a repeal of the Second Amendment, then? (Or maybe a rewording to make it utterly plain that you can only keep and bear arms if you're part of a state militia.)

I don't care. That's a political problem, not a moral or practical problem.

But it does stand in the way of your "simple solution." Whether you like it or not, the Second Amendment, as currently interpreted, does allow people to own as many guns as they want, with only certain restrictions.

The mother would not have had a gun to be stolen in any other country on Earth.

You seem pretty sure of that. Even you admit there are still guns in Australia. Why wouldn't his mother be one of the owners?

Political problems, not practical ones. Frankly, if idiots start shooting when a majority of citizens enact commonsense best-practice gun laws, have the army shoot them.

We have laws against that in the US. Also, you are assuming the Army or Marines could get there in time to stop a massacre.



Unrelated to Lt. Fred, I had a thought... The eternal answer to these massacres is "if everyone was armed, someone would take the shooter down." It's agreed that that is bunk, but I did think of a way to test it. Aren't there paintball pistols? In a controlled environment, make a mock-up (say) movie theater. Arm one person with a pistol filled with one color paint. Arm half the other participant with a gun with another color paint. Only the "original shooter" (the one with the unique paint color) knows who the original shooter is. Then let the scenario run. When it is over, see how many people were shot by the OS and how many were shot by someone trying to "help."

[rookie]

Often involuntary, and effective in any case. Americans are hardly unique among all the world's people.

Hmm. Cops kicking in doors in the middle of the night to confiscate property legally purchased. I like it. Piss on the Second and Fourth Amendments. I bet you're right. I bet that would take care of guns now and forever with no backlash or unforeseen consequences. You know, once I told you you don't get Americans. I take it all back.