What's your opinion of gun control?

[TECSHARE]

The people who don't believe that we have a gun problem in this country is out of their minds. Countless numbers of people die every year over guns so don't tell me we don't have a gun problem!

Use of guns in self-defense and self-determination (suicide) are both human rights, and not a problem for anyone but an aggressor. Remove those from the statistics and suddenly you find out that countless more numbers of people die every year because they were {il}legally disarmed for violent criminals' safety.

Look at South Korea, Japan, and other countries with extremely strict gun laws, they don't experience mass killings like our lovely gun slanging Cowboys here.

That's not the cause of gun control law, it's the cause of cultural homogeny.  America is, shall we say, much more 'multicultural' than Japan or South Korea is, which leads to a greater amount of violence as these cultures, naturally, do not get along (and some are just plain more violent than others, I'm sure I don't need to mention which ones specifically, just look at the crime rates between each of these cultures.)  Take that out of the equation, make America as monocultural as Japan and South Korea is, and you'll notice the crime rate plummet, which includes the rate of mass killings.  Only true difference between these nations (Japan, SK, China, NK) is that their mass killings occur usually with stabbings, what I presume is the 2nd best thing next to guns to injure others.  So clearly the issue does not rest with guns, even in these societies where everyone ought to get along with so much in common, they still fail to.  So I guess if you really would rather be stabbed to death than shot, banning guns might help you out, but I sincerely feel the distinction is minute.  That's not to mention the power shift between those allowed to have guns--usually only those in the oligarchy--and those regular folks who have no sway over what is and is not acceptable for gun ownership.  If you feel this won't be abused for the decider's benefit, it is due to your naiveté towards power games.

And then there's the fact that, in the case of someone overpowering me to stab me (rather than shooting me), I am at a severe disadvantage since I'm not as strong as most people, and this is the case for many.  Firearms heavily level the playing field here.

Further, Europe has far more stricter gun laws in general than America does, and yet has mass killings on par with, if not greater than, America.  Also notice that Europe is also multicultural.  I hope the pattern is becoming clear to you.

It's identical to computer control, to limit who can have access to a computer and who can't, to prevent hackers from hacking and to prevent pedophiles from sharing CP etc.  Is the computer the problem?  No, it just facilitates action, it is neutral.  I can make this argument for just about anything.  What about encryption control?  What if some bad guys use encryption to hide their plots?  The harm in banning or controlling such far outweighs the benefit.  And hackers would still get their computers, and encryption is simple enough to do on your own anyway so that'd be hilarious to attempt to control.

Let's say that you have never used a computer in your life.  You feel that life is perfectly fine without computers.  You notice that computers are often used to do terrible things, and have been used to ruin many people's lives daily.  The odds of you supporting computer control skyrocket.  However, because--chances are--you do use computers regularly, you would feel personally infringed upon to have this right to computers tampered with.  You are far less likely to support such "Orwellian" measures, because you would personally feel the negative effects of that control.  What right does the government have to tell me whether I can use my PC, my laptop, my smart phone, my gaming console?  And I can guarantee you, if you tried using firearms, if you got comfortable with their presence, if you learned how to personally control them, you would not project your own feelings of being out-of-control with firearms onto a political agenda.  You feel the need for others to control firearms because you do not feel you have any control of them, and that makes them very scary.  You should learn how to use guns, your mind will change very quickly.

Good post. Thanks for bringing this up, I feel it is a very important point people consistently overlook.  Anyone who spends any small amount of time looking over crime stats will find that there is a high correlation between crime rates and the amount of multiculturalism in an area. It is a fact that the more you put people of different classes, races, religions, etc in an area, the more they conflict, thus resulting in higher crime rates. Even in Europe they still usually have an ethnocentric core of a native population that serves as the foundation for their nations. In the USA there is no such thing. Everyone except for the Native Americans and the Mexican indians came here from somewhere else. You could argue that Caucasians are largely in control and serve as that same core, but even if that were true to an extent, those Caucasians often come from very disparate places all over the world and do not necessarily share a common culture or heritage. In my opinion this is the crux of the reason why USA suffers from higher rates of crime, and as a result depends more on gun ownership to control that crime, because as you said guns are the great equalizer. Even granny and little Timmy can fight off big 300lb assailants if they know how to use a firearm properly. Good luck doing that without a gun.

[1714215339]

1714215339

[1714215339]

1714215339

[1714215339]

1714215339

[1714215339]

1714215339

[valta4065]

The people who don't believe that we have a gun problem in this country is out of their minds. Countless numbers of people die every year over guns so don't tell me we don't have a gun problem!

Use of guns in self-defense and self-determination (suicide) are both human rights, and not a problem for anyone but an aggressor. Remove those from the statistics and suddenly you find out that countless more numbers of people die every year because they were {il}legally disarmed for violent criminals' safety.

Look at South Korea, Japan, and other countries with extremely strict gun laws, they don't experience mass killings like our lovely gun slanging Cowboys here.

That's not the cause of gun control law, it's the cause of cultural homogeny.  America is, shall we say, much more 'multicultural' than Japan or South Korea is, which leads to a greater amount of violence as these cultures, naturally, do not get along (and some are just plain more violent than others, I'm sure I don't need to mention which ones specifically, just look at the crime rates between each of these cultures.)  Take that out of the equation, make America as monocultural as Japan and South Korea is, and you'll notice the crime rate plummet, which includes the rate of mass killings.  Only true difference between these nations (Japan, SK, China, NK) is that their mass killings occur usually with stabbings, what I presume is the 2nd best thing next to guns to injure others.  So clearly the issue does not rest with guns, even in these societies where everyone ought to get along with so much in common, they still fail to.  So I guess if you really would rather be stabbed to death than shot, banning guns might help you out, but I sincerely feel the distinction is minute.  That's not to mention the power shift between those allowed to have guns--usually only those in the oligarchy--and those regular folks who have no sway over what is and is not acceptable for gun ownership.  If you feel this won't be abused for the decider's benefit, it is due to your naiveté towards power games.

And then there's the fact that, in the case of someone overpowering me to stab me (rather than shooting me), I am at a severe disadvantage since I'm not as strong as most people, and this is the case for many.  Firearms heavily level the playing field here.

Further, Europe has far more stricter gun laws in general than America does, and yet has mass killings on par with, if not greater than, America.  Also notice that Europe is also multicultural.  I hope the pattern is becoming clear to you.

It's identical to computer control, to limit who can have access to a computer and who can't, to prevent hackers from hacking and to prevent pedophiles from sharing CP etc.  Is the computer the problem?  No, it just facilitates action, it is neutral.  I can make this argument for just about anything.  What about encryption control?  What if some bad guys use encryption to hide their plots?  The harm in banning or controlling such far outweighs the benefit.  And hackers would still get their computers, and encryption is simple enough to do on your own anyway so that'd be hilarious to attempt to control.

Let's say that you have never used a computer in your life.  You feel that life is perfectly fine without computers.  You notice that computers are often used to do terrible things, and have been used to ruin many people's lives daily.  The odds of you supporting computer control skyrocket.  However, because--chances are--you do use computers regularly, you would feel personally infringed upon to have this right to computers tampered with.  You are far less likely to support such "Orwellian" measures, because you would personally feel the negative effects of that control.  What right does the government have to tell me whether I can use my PC, my laptop, my smart phone, my gaming console?  And I can guarantee you, if you tried using firearms, if you got comfortable with their presence, if you learned how to personally control them, you would not project your own feelings of being out-of-control with firearms onto a political agenda.  You feel the need for others to control firearms because you do not feel you have any control of them, and that makes them very scary.  You should learn how to use guns, your mind will change very quickly.

Would you care to explain why Texas got so much rapes and killings while having a population mainly white? (85%)

[The Sceptical Chymist]

IMO, people should be given the choice whether whey want to own a fire-arm or not. In places like Texas, where home invasions are very common, the possession of a fire-arm can save many lives. However, the government should make it impossible for people with a criminal record, and those with mental issues from obtaining fire-arms.

Discriminating against people with mental health issues is something we don't want to do, believe me. The government should not have access to people's health records when making a determination on this.

[valta4065]

Good post. Thanks for bringing this up, I feel it is a very important point people consistently overlook.  Anyone who spends any small amount of time looking over crime stats will find that there is a high correlation between crime rates and the amount of multiculturalism in an area. It is a fact that the more you put people of different classes, races, religions, etc in an area, the more they conflict, thus resulting in higher crime rates. Even in Europe they still usually have an ethnocentric core of a native population that serves as the foundation for their nations. In the USA there is no such thing. Everyone except for the Native Americans and the Indians came here from somewhere else. You could argue that Caucasians are largely in control and serve as that same core, but even if that were true to an extent, those Caucasians often come from very disparate places all over the world and do not necessarily share a common culture or heritage. In my opinion this is the crux of the reason why USA suffers from higher rates of crime, and as a result depends more on gun ownership to control that crime, because as you said guns are the great equalizer. Even granny and little Timmy can fight off big 300lb assailants if they know how to use a firearm properly. Good luck doing that without a gun.

Really? Glad it's so easy.

But it's funny, after looking up for a small amount of time I found Texas having such a strong amount of rapes and murders while having one of the most homogeneous population of USA (85% whites, 14% blacks) and one of the highest rates of gun property and the most freedom concerning guns.

Would you care to detail where is the link with racial diversity in Texas?

[TECSHARE]

Good post. Thanks for bringing this up, I feel it is a very important point people consistently overlook.  Anyone who spends any small amount of time looking over crime stats will find that there is a high correlation between crime rates and the amount of multiculturalism in an area. It is a fact that the more you put people of different classes, races, religions, etc in an area, the more they conflict, thus resulting in higher crime rates. Even in Europe they still usually have an ethnocentric core of a native population that serves as the foundation for their nations. In the USA there is no such thing. Everyone except for the Native Americans and the Indians came here from somewhere else. You could argue that Caucasians are largely in control and serve as that same core, but even if that were true to an extent, those Caucasians often come from very disparate places all over the world and do not necessarily share a common culture or heritage. In my opinion this is the crux of the reason why USA suffers from higher rates of crime, and as a result depends more on gun ownership to control that crime, because as you said guns are the great equalizer. Even granny and little Timmy can fight off big 300lb assailants if they know how to use a firearm properly. Good luck doing that without a gun.

Really? Glad it's so easy.

But it's funny, after looking up for a small amount of time I found Texas having such a strong amount of rapes and murders while having one of the most homogeneous population of USA (85% whites, 14% blacks) and one of the highest rates of gun property and the most freedom concerning guns.

Would you care to detail where is the link with racial diversity in Texas?

Mexico. Try again.

[Buildabitcoin]

Im going to have to disagree with you on that one. If you believe guns are tools, then they are tools to kill people. We cant put the lives of innocent people at the hands of anyone who pleases (literallly).

[BADecker]

Im going to have to disagree with you on that one. If you believe guns are tools, then they are tools to kill people. We cant put the lives of innocent people at the hands of anyone who pleases (literallly).

But we do, all the time, by not supplying them with guns equally. When we give them guns, we often turn them into something like Al Qaeda, or ISIS.

[TheButterZone]

Im going to have to disagree with you on that one. If you believe guns are tools, then they are tools to kill people. We cant put the lives of innocent people at the hands of anyone who pleases (literallly).

Tools that mostly fail to work as YOU claim they are intended to work.

[TECSHARE]

Im going to have to disagree with you on that one. If you believe guns are tools, then they are tools to kill people. We cant put the lives of innocent people at the hands of anyone who pleases (literallly).

You put your life in the hands of other people all day every day, but you simply prefer to pretend this is not the case to ease the stress of looking closely at such facts. You could also make the same fallacious argument with knives, lighters, explosives, poisons, fuck even the guy who prepares your food. Maybe we should ban chefs? This is not a good enough reason to disarm everyone and disable them from defending themselves and others from violence because you have a psychological hangup about only this specific type of risk, which I believe you have overstated as well.

Which do you think is more common? That random people would risk your life with a gun or that random people would protect your life with a gun? I am sure in your media conditioned mind your knee jerk reaction is to say you at more of a risk being shot accidentally or purposely than protected. Self defense statistics show that is an erroneous assumption though. Even the most conservative estimates show that guns protect people FAR more often than they harm them.

[Hganz11]

A gun doesn't kill innocent people the user does i believe that not everyone should be able to carry a gun only like all special forces

[TECSHARE]

A gun doesn't kill innocent people the user does i believe that not everyone should be able to carry a gun only like all special forces

So what happens when armed criminals go on a rampage? We call in the special forces like the police? Even police are ineffective at protecting people. They get there in minutes when seconds count, usually just in time to fill out the forms for the body bags. That is if the police don't kill you themselves. Self defense is a human right. That is why the USA has the 2nd amendment.

[BADecker]

A gun doesn't kill innocent people the user does i believe that not everyone should be able to carry a gun only like all special forces

Something like 95% of the people are reasonably good people. And few of the 5% bad ones would kill someone with a gun.

I think we should arm everyone, and give them training in morals and ethics at the same time. If we did this, the small percent of the bad people would die in their attempt at doing something wrong. Then we would have close to 100% good people left.

[Wapinter]

I think there should be strict restrictions to buy and possess a gun or any other weapon.I dont understand the logic behind letting civilians having a gun in a civilised society.In such a society,gun will only create violence and chaos

[sallymeeh27]

I believe so that gun control should be most prioritize by any country most especially for private and public sector. People nowadays are extremely different and our world has turned. Handling guns should only be provided only for people in authority by the government in cases of defense. But private sector and people with no means of using should be very strict in issuing this kind of equipment. This has cause death and cruelty for innocent people beyond their knowledge might came out a victim. This is a very serious matter for poor handling..

[Spendulus]

I believe so that gun control should be most prioritize by any country most especially for private and public sector. People nowadays are extremely different and our world has turned. Handling guns should only be provided only for people in authority by the government in cases of defense. But private sector and people with no means of using should be very strict in issuing this kind of equipment. This has cause death and cruelty for innocent people beyond their knowledge might came out a victim. This is a very serious matter for poor handling..

So this is scary?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173050/Do-NOT-steal-woman-s-towel-Heavily-armed-bikini-clad-female-Israeli-soldiers-mingle-Tel-Aviv-beachgoers.html

[cameltoe]

Ban guns and upgrade our baseball bats to make them more lethal weapons. Everyone will be entitle to one baseball bat per household. Cops will have the more lethal version with spiked 6" nails protruding like a death wish. Students will have a less deadly version but can still justify a few broken bones if needed.

I don't see the use of lethal weapons really. Do you really need to blow someone's head off or would a few broken bones suffice?

[TheButterZone]

I think there should be strict restrictions to buy and possess a gun or any other weapon.I dont understand the logic behind letting civilians having a gun in a civilised society.In such a society,gun will only create violence and chaos

... for violent criminals to suffer at the hands of their self-defenseful victims until there are no longer any violent criminals, yes.

[BADecker]

Ban guns and upgrade our baseball bats to make them more lethal weapons. Everyone will be entitle to one baseball bat per household. Cops will have the more lethal version with spiked 6" nails protruding like a death wish. Students will have a less deadly version but can still justify a few broken bones if needed.

I don't see the use of lethal weapons really. Do you really need to blow someone's head off or would a few broken bones suffice?

My baseball bat would shoot the nails.   

[bitsmichel]

Ban guns and upgrade our baseball bats to make them more lethal weapons. Everyone will be entitle to one baseball bat per household. Cops will have the more lethal version with spiked 6" nails protruding like a death wish. Students will have a less deadly version but can still justify a few broken bones if needed.

I don't see the use of lethal weapons really. Do you really need to blow someone's head off or would a few broken bones suffice?

The right to own guns and the license to kill are two different things. Who's gonna protect you once the commies take over?

[craked5]

Im going to have to disagree with you on that one. If you believe guns are tools, then they are tools to kill people. We cant put the lives of innocent people at the hands of anyone who pleases (literallly).

You put your life in the hands of other people all day every day, but you simply prefer to pretend this is not the case to ease the stress of looking closely at such facts. You could also make the same fallacious argument with knives, lighters, explosives, poisons, fuck even the guy who prepares your food. Maybe we should ban chefs? This is not a good enough reason to disarm everyone and disable them from defending themselves and others from violence because you have a psychological hangup about only this specific type of risk, which I believe you have overstated as well.

Which do you think is more common? That random people would risk your life with a gun or that random people would protect your life with a gun? I am sure in your media conditioned mind your knee jerk reaction is to say you at more of a risk being shot accidentally or purposely than protected. Self defense statistics show that is an erroneous assumption though. Even the most conservative estimates show that guns protect people FAR more often than they harm them.

Whaou, and why don't you bring such study on the table? If you have a proof that guns protect more than they hurt, the debate will be over. Why don't you provide such incredible proof?