Gun Control in the US

Leroy42

Right Dick, what data are you basing the position that arming civilians leads to lower crime rates?

Fail to answer that and you position in baseless.

And even if you somehow manage to get something, it still doesn't lead to the conclusion that arming civilians, with the inherent accidents that naturally occurs, is worth it.

On a final point, why do you believe that he US has such a vastly higher level of mass shootings that any other country (non war) in the world.

Brian?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Boards baffles me sometimes. Whenever there is a thread about legalising drugs the consensus among 99 per cent of posters' is that drugs should be legalised because keeping them illegal doesn't work and creates more users. Yet the groupthink conclusion in this thread seems to be that restricting access to guns will definitely work. I'm confused.

False equivalency.

Drug users only harm themselves. Drug dealers harm each other fighting over the control of supply. Legalise drugs and you lower violent crime.

The free availability of guns gives everyone access to something that can, and does, harm others.

I'll give you an example. Seat belt laws versus drink driving laws. One makes logical sense to protect the population. One can be considered nanny statism.

FYI. I don't believe any gun bans will address the root cause of the gun violence issue in the US. It's a societal issue, not a legal issue.

DickSwiveller

Brian? wrote: »

False equivalency.

Drug users only harm themselves. Drug dealers harm each other fighting over the control of supply. Legalise drugs and you lower violent crime.

The free availability of guns gives everyone access to something that can, and does, harm others.

I'll give you an example. Seat belt laws versus drink driving laws. One makes logical sense to protect the population. One can be considered nanny statism.

FYI. I don't believe any gun bans will address the root cause of the gun violence issue in the US. It's a societal issue, not a legal issue.

Drug users only harm themselves

Not true. They harm those closest to them (See Henry Cockburn's book about his son's use of cannabis and the mental problems he suffered with). They rob to feed their habit, thus affecting others.

I have no problem with citizens being able to buy guns. I don't think the State should have the power to deny access. In Ireland, the only people whoa re freely able to own a gun are criminals. They have no problem getting them. While lonely, unarmed farmers worry about these thugs attacking them.

I completely agree with your last sentence.

DickSwiveller

Leroy42 wrote: »

Right Dick, what data are you basing the position that arming civilians leads to lower crime rates?

Fail to answer that and you position in baseless.

And even if you somehow manage to get something, it still doesn't lead to the conclusion that arming civilians, with the inherent accidents that naturally occurs, is worth it.

On a final point, why do you believe that he US has such a vastly higher level of mass shootings that any other country (non war) in the world.

I didn't say that arming civilians reduces crime rates. I'm talking specifically about the USA, a country that has 300 million guns in circulation. If people think that guns cause these mass shootings, why is it a relatively recent phenomenon? Prior to the 1980's these kinds of massacres were virtually unknown. Might it not have something to do with the horrible society that exists in that country, where money, success and rank materialism are valued above everything else, leaving a whole class of disenfranchised, alienated people.

Btw, Britain in the 19th century had similar levels of gun ownership to Texas now and I can't find any examples of mass killings.

Leroy42

DickSwiveller wrote: »

If you ban AR15 guns in a country with 300 million guns, then the only people who will be happy are the criminals, who won't follow the law. The ordinary law abiding people will suffer.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I didn't say that arming civilians reduces crime rates.

Well you have me confused then. On the first post you seem to making the suggestion that arming civilians is the only way to protect them from criminals, but then go on to claim that it doesn't reduce crime. So what is your basis for allowing civilians to continue to hold guns?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I'm talking specifically about the USA, a country that has 300 million guns in circulation. If people think that guns cause these mass shootings, why is it a relatively recent phenomenon? Prior to the 1980's these kinds of massacres were virtually unknown. Might it not have something to do with the horrible society that exists in that country, where money, success and rank materialism are valued above everything else, leaving a whole class of disenfranchised, alienated people.

Btw, Britain in the 19th century had similar levels of gun ownership to Texas now and I can't find any examples of mass killings.

Did 19th century Britain have guns like the AR-15? Did they have bump stocks? What type of loading mechanisms did they have? 19th century had nothing like the rapid fire weapons of today. You might get one shot off before everyone scarpered.

And I agree that the gun violence is an outcome of other problems. But then taking that logic why the war on drugs? Drugs are only a way for people, who are looking for some release from life, a gee up, a rush. Drugs are not the problem, people are. I have never seen a drug inject itself! You see how illogical your position is?

But we know that underlying issues exist (although thanks to the NRA lobbying we have yet to be able to research what these actually are) but why, when you know these problems exist, would anybody think it is a good idea to add fuel to the fire, to add anything that could potentially add to any outbreak that happens.

BabyCheeses

DickSwiveller wrote: »

There are currently 300 million guns in circulation in the U.S. How are some restrictions going to control this number of guns? The only people who will be affected if the government brings in restrictions are the law abiding people who don't randomly kill people.

This is a perfect example of what I said. You just put down any idea that the ease of access to weapons could have an affect on mass killings but don't explain what is the problem.

Why ban anything? Why can't I own a nuclear weapon? Why aren't there more terrorist attacks with them? According to you a ban won't stop terrorists getting them.

Brian?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Drug users only harm themselves

Not true. They harm those closest to them (See Henry Cockburn's book about his son's use of cannabis and the mental problems he suffered with). They rob to feed their habit, thus affecting others.

I would argue that the harm drugs caused would be lessened by decriminalising them. The data shows this to be true. Look at Portugal.

I have no problem with citizens being able to buy guns. I don't think the State should have the power to deny access. In Ireland, the only people whoa re freely able to own a gun are criminals. They have no problem getting them. While lonely, unarmed farmers worry about these thugs attacking them.

I completely agree with your last sentence.

The bolded part is patently untrue. Criminals are not freely able to own guns, if caught they go to prison.

BabyCheeses

NRA convention is to be a gun free zone due to secret service requirements. According to the NRA if everyone there is armed it should be the safest place on earth.

Eric Cartman

BabyCheeses wrote: »

NRA convention is to be a gun free zone due to secret service requirements. According to the NRA if everyone there is armed it should be the safest place on earth.

when was the last time somebody was shot at an NRA meeting, gun convention, weapons expo etc...

Manic Moran

BabyCheeses wrote: »

NRA convention is to be a gun free zone due to secret service requirements. According to the NRA if everyone there is armed it should be the safest place on earth.

The Secret Service has a great ability to piss everyone off. Fortunately Trump doesn't come to San Francisco anywhere near the regularity of Obama. The TFR which always results is annoying as hell, and God help our traffic patterns if he decided he wanted to go from San Francisco to Silicon Valley.

As for irony, have you noticed how many of the leading anti-gun voices have armed security?

BabyCheeses

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Secret Service has a great ability to piss everyone off. Fortunately Trump doesn't come to San Francisco anywhere near the regularity of Obama. The TFR which always results is annoying as hell, and God help our traffic patterns if he decided he wanted to go from San Francisco to Silicon Valley.

As for irony, have you noticed how many of the leading anti-gun voices have armed security?

In a country with plenty of people who buy a gun so they can shoot anyone who tries to take away their gun it makes sense to have security before a responsible gun owner tries to kill you. They aren't anti-gun because they think the place is safe.

Manic Moran

BabyCheeses wrote: »

In a country with plenty of people who buy a gun so they can shoot anyone who tries to take away their gun it makes sense to have security before a responsible gun owner tries to kill you. They aren't anti-gun because they think the place is safe.

Does it matter the motivation or identity of the person who is a threat to you?

FatherTed

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Secret Service has a great ability to piss everyone off. Fortunately Trump doesn't come to San Francisco anywhere near the regularity of Obama. The TFR which always results is annoying as hell, and God help our traffic patterns if he decided he wanted to go from San Francisco to Silicon Valley.

As for irony, have you noticed how many of the leading anti-gun voices have armed security?

If there was proper gun control, there would not be much of a need for armed security.

Cookie_Monster

Manic Moran wrote: »

Does it matter the motivation or identity of the person who is a threat to you?

Surely it must, at the very least it allows you a better chance of determining if it is an actual threat or just perceived. Given the levels of racism in the US, simply being black in a certain neighbourhood would label you a threat in some people eyes.

Manic Moran

FatherTed wrote: »

If there was proper gun control, there would not be much of a need for armed security.

So the Taoseach's security group is unarmed, then? Or those of Japanese personages? It there any country on Earth which is so confident in their gun control that they feel that there is no legitimate defensive use for firearms? Heck, have you seen the Vatican arms room?

GreeBo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Does it matter the motivation or identity of the person who is a threat to you?

It should matter no more to you than it matters to the bullet imo.

FatherTed

Manic Moran wrote: »

So the Taoseach's security group is unarmed, then? Or those of Japanese personages? It there any country on Earth which is so confident in their gun control that they feel that there is no legitimate defensive use for firearms? Heck, have you seen the Vatican arms room?

Reading Comprehension 101: I said "much of a need". The taoiseach requires protection as does any world leader but you don't see TD's and Councillors going around with armed protection everyday in Ireland.

brendanwalsh

I'm not sure what the solution to this crisis is.

America was populated by the dredges of Europe so the gene pool started off at a disadvantage from the get go
The social issues have exacerbated this issue leaving a feral section of the population.

One things for sure, that body politik needs to be disarmed.