A question about America's gun culture

jackofalltrades

Never understand the obsession with US culture that you get on this forum.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Every year in America there are mass shootings and hundreds of deaths a year from gun violence. Then there are countless debates on the role of gun culture in these deaths. My question is this: If giving up guns saved even ten lives a year would it not be worth it?

Reducing the death toll by 10 people would be a drop in the ocean when you consider how many people are killed by guns in the USA every year.
It would be like banning cars over 90 BHP in Ireland just to reduce road deaths by one a year.

Mesrine65

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yes you would that's what reasonable people do.... The Government makes laws citizens follow them. :pac:

No I would not, I am not going to be reasonable if the government tries to force me to relinquish my firearms.

Not all citizens blindly accept the rulings of their government, especially one that they have no faith in.

steddyeddy

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Never understand the obsession with US culture that you get on this forum.


Reducing the death toll by 10 people would be a drop in the ocean when you consider how many people are killed by guns in the USA every year.
It would be like banning cars over 90 BHP in Ireland just to reduce road deaths by one a year.

So you don't think my estimate of ten people per ~300 million was bordering on the ludicrously conservative?

RandomName2

steddyeddy wrote: »

Every year in America there are mass shootings and hundreds of deaths a year from gun violence. Then there are countless debates on the role of gun culture in these deaths. My question is this: If giving up guns saved even ten lives a year would it not be worth it?

The fundamental idea behind it is that arming the citizens prevents tyranny or dictatorial governments. This clearly has failed as the police seem to be able to kill who they like, the government is able to spy without any real oversight, and elections are essentially bought in America.

The other argument is that now that everyone has access to guns in America making them illegal will make it worse, as criminals will still have access to guns, but "decent" citizens won't.

Victor

Gbear wrote: »

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Realise that that expression works the other way also. People have given up the liberty to go around without the fear of gun violence.

Mesrine65 wrote: »

Why are we so pre-occupied with America's gun culture?

Their country, their legislation...their problem!

But they export that problem, both in general wars and the war on drugs. Many drug-related murders in Mexico and Central America are facilitated by the lax USA's gun laws.

RandomName2 wrote: »

The other argument is that now that everyone has access to guns in America making them illegal will make it worse, as criminals will still have access to guns, but "decent" citizens won't.

How do you think criminals get guns? They proliferate from wider society. And as I've pointed out, many "decent citizens" kill their family and friends with guns.

steddyeddy

I don't get the opposition people have to posters taking interest in mass shootings.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

By 1942 there were only a handful of democracies left. Pretty much down just some English speaking countries, Switzerland and Scandinavia.

The rest was various forms of dictatorships , colonies and kleptocracies without true democracy. eg. Mexico was under one party rule from 1929 to 2000m. Sweden's SAP was in power from 1932 to 1976. A lot of people were pleasantly surprised that we had peaceful transfer of power in 1932 and Dev didn't become a dictator. We did suspended a lot of freedoms during "the emergency".

All the other democracies are younger.
Technically France's Fifth Republic only goes back to 1958.

Democratic countries, reading back i should have left those words out but i was thinking of present day.

The gun culture is part of America history and there is no way american citizens would hand in their weapons, would create mayhem the problem is there is no proper control on what type of weapons you can buy and of course no proper background check on who can buy them, what America needs is a leader to can force both houses to clean up the mess that is their second amendment but its not looking at if thats going to happen so the madness will continue, i think if i was living in America i would probably feel a lot safer if i had a gun, wouldn't like it but im sure that the way it is for many decent families over there.

steddyeddy

Basically my interest in this topic stems from the following observation :Everytime a mass shooting happens in America there seems to be more opposition to the possibility that people will lose the right to own guns than concern than embracing of the possibility that reducing guns might save lives.

That to me is sickening.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Basically my interest in this topic stems from the following observation :Everytime a mass shooting happens in America there seems to be more opposition to the possibility that people will lose the right to own guns than concern than embracing of the possibility that reducing guns might save lives.

That to me is sickening.

Yes reducing guns would save lives but unfortunately the reality of it all is the gun business in America is a multibillion dollar industry and from my understanding of it is both parties republicans and democrats don't want to touch their second amendment because of that reason, their second amendment is a mess, its out of date and its crazy, but the gun business in America is a multibillion dollar industry and you're right it is sickening.

Check the link and there you'll find the real cause of the problem.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/03/americas-gun-business-by-the-numbers.html

mzungu

steddyeddy wrote: »

Basically my interest in this topic stems from the following observation :Everytime a mass shooting happens in America there seems to be more opposition to the possibility that people will lose the right to own guns than concern than embracing of the possibility that reducing guns might save lives.

That to me is sickening.

Only an observation, but I reckon the reason for this could be attributed to the idea (usually peddled directly after a massacre) that if there had been more guns it could have been stopped. People then feel that a crackdown on guns makes them more vulnerable. The logic is baffling. A nation that has been hyped into an almost permanent state of paranoia, thinking they are facing a threat from whomever the terror group du jour happens to be. The notion of flooding that populace with easily accessible firearms is pure and utter madness. In some ways, I am shocked that the death tolls are not higher.

Trekker09

The NRA are too powerful for any government to do anything about it. Don't worry though, we might have good ol' Donald at the helm, and ain't he the voice of reason :cool:

Capt'n Midnight

mzungu wrote: »

If it saved one life it would be worth it.

Since 9/11 only 26 Americans have been killed by terrorists. So two lives a year or thereabouts.

The war on terror is costing trillions of dollars
and over a million lives.

That cost could provide health and welfare enough to save as many lives.

Sh1tbag OToole

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Since 9/11 only 26 Americans have been killed by terrorists. So two lives a year or thereabouts.

The war on terror is costing trillions of dollars
and over a million lives.

That cost could provide health and welfare enough to save as many lives.

The US of A needs a war every 10 years to keep its economy afloat. There isnt the same money in saving people as in juicy military contracts

Sheeps

if you dont like gatling guns, bald eagles crying and freedom then get the **** out. merica

stunmer

mzungu wrote: »

If it saved one life it would be worth it. Part of the problem is the power of the lobbyists and the other is the general apathy for change among the public. Gun crime has become so commonplace now, people are used to it. Shootings will continue unfortunately. I doubt that any shooting spree can shock the nation now.

Never really understood this. There are many things we could do which could save at least one life. Ban contact sports, ban skydiving, ban junk food, reduce road speed limits by 50%, ban mountaineering, ban swimming.

The US gun situation needs addressing but doing something to "save even one life" is not necessarily worth doing.

KingBrian2

stunmer wrote: »

Never really understood this. There are many things we could do which could save at least one life. Ban contact sports, ban skydiving, ban junk food, reduce road speed limits by 50%, ban mountaineering, ban swimming.

The US gun situation needs addressing but doing something to "save even one life" is not necessarily worth doing.

None of those things are remotely possible to ban. The people will flout the law. Gun ownership on the other hand can be restricted.

mzungu

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Since 9/11 only 26 Americans have been killed by terrorists. So two lives a year or thereabouts.

The war on terror is costing trillions of dollars
and over a million lives.

That cost could provide health and welfare enough to save as many lives.

True dat! Skewed sense of priorities.

stunmer wrote: »

Never really understood this. There are many things we could do which could save at least one life. Ban contact sports, ban skydiving, ban junk food, reduce road speed limits by 50%, ban mountaineering, ban swimming.

The US gun situation needs addressing but doing something to "save even one life" is not necessarily worth doing.

I was talking specifically in the context of random shootings, not sport and leisure! If stricter controls mean less access to firearms that can dislodge umpteen rounds per minute (not sure of exact figures) then that probably would save one life. I hope the figures would be much higher than one though!

Preferably, I would go for an outright ban, however that is unrealistic as the genie is out of the bottle now and it would be unenforceable. They love their guns, that won't change any time soon. A knock on effect is people will continue to be massacred. The best option is to try mitigate the carnage as much as possible.

Billy86

Well sure by that logic stumner, since guns cause deaths why can't we all own tanks, rocket launchers and nuclear weapons... or at least some mustard gas?

Victor

As I understand it.

Billy86 wrote: »

Well sure by that logic stumner, since guns cause deaths why can't we all own tanks

Legal, but expensive.

rocket launchers

Legal, but the explosives are taxed heavily. Explosive rounds are more restricted than solid rounds.

nuclear weapons

I get the impression these are actually illegally for private people to own.

mustard gas?

Banned by international treay.

Billy86

Victor wrote: »

As I understand it. Legal, but expensive.

The ridiculousness of it all! :pac:

Apparently only with the weapons decommissioned, though.

Legal, but the explosives are taxed heavily. Explosive rounds are more restricted than solid rounds.

Sweet mother of...

But after a very brief search, it appears you need to have very difficult-to-get licences etc.




Although theoretically then, with said licences and such, one could own a tank and roll it down the street, before banging open the hatch with duel rocket launchers!



*head explodes*

Sheeps

Billy86 wrote: »

The ridiculousness of it all! :pac:

Apparently only with the weapons decommissioned, though.

Sweet mother of...

But after a very brief search, it appears you need to have very difficult-to-get licences etc.




Although theoretically then, with said licences and such, one could own a tank and roll it down the street, before banging open the hatch with duel rocket launchers!



*head explodes*

why would you pop open the hatch of a tank with dual rocket launchers if you're literally in a tank?

recipio

I think most of you are missing the point. The average American does not want to live like the average European. They equate gun ownership with the natural 'God given' right to self defence and will simply not compromise that.

stunmer

I was just picking up on the "If it saved one life it would be worth it.".

This is always trotted out as a reason for a change in law even though there are far superior arguments to make. I was just posting how it is not a valid argument as there are many other things we could do which would save at least one life.

The "If it saved one life it would be worth it." argument is not valid when dealing with a whole country especially the size of the US.

We constantly weigh up the advantages of a law change vs the impact on people's freedom to do what they want.

On gun control in the US, there does need to be a reform of the laws regarding firearms but unfortunately Obama has been held back every time he tries to tackle the issue.

KomradeBishop

It wouldn't save 'just one life' though - look at the stats, it'd save a fúckload of lives. More than e.g. terrorists have taken in the US.

captbarnacles

stunmer wrote: »

Never really understood this. There are many things we could do which could save at least one life. Ban contact sports, ban skydiving, ban junk food, reduce road speed limits by 50%, ban mountaineering, ban swimming.

The US gun situation needs addressing but doing something to "save even one life" is not necessarily worth doing.

The key thing about the activities you list is that it's the participant who is placing themselves in danger and not other people.

Capt'n Midnight

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

The US of A needs a war every 10 years to keep its economy afloat. There isnt the same money in saving people as in juicy military contracts

No it doesn't. All it needs is people to keep buying oil in dollars.

Look at Germany or Japan , or China. There are lots of countries that have done quite well thank you when they weren't dumping tonnes of money into arms.

Billy86

Sheeps wrote: »

why would you pop open the hatch of a tank with dual rocket launchers if you're literally in a tank?

Because the turret apparently has to be decommissioned. Damn gubmint taking mah freedoms!

Trekker09

On the subject of spree shootings, I remember reading at article that suggested a blanket ban on the extensive media coverage. Apparently the publicity is the fuel that encourages these killings.

recipio

Have a look at 'The weapon hunter' on Quest. Rich guys collecting machine guns (and firing them ) Its very hard to change that kind of entrenched mentality.

steddyeddy

recipio wrote: »

I think most of you are missing the point. The average American does not want to live like the average European. They equate gun ownership with the natural 'God given' right to self defence and will simply not compromise that.

A high proportion of American's also believe man co-existed with dinosaurs. That's a silly but harmless belief. Unfortunately the belief that guns are a right is a silly and extremely dangerous belief. They teach evolution is schools despite the wishes of a large percentage of the American public and they should treat the gun culture the same IMHO.

It's not benefitting society.