General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

If that were the case Sugetsu then Mexico wouldn't be in the shape it's in.
So no, the number don't speak for themselves.
Twisting the data to fit their opinion is what I see all over the main stream media.
Also, I don't listen to anything Maddow says or anything on MSNBC for that matter.
It's propaganda, plain and simple.

Mexico's problems are of an entirely different nature it can't be compared to US mass shootings.

For one the problem there is related to the war on drugs and the struggle to control the flow of drugs to the US which yields immense profit. Mexico's problem was Colombia's problem 12 years ago and in the future it will become Bolivia's problem too.

Mexico's gun problem is correlated to the immense profit derived from the sale of illegal drugs, which in turn encourages people to smuggle American guns into the Mexico. Don't forget that the United States suffered the same gun problem at a lesser scale when alcohol and tobacco were prohibited.

The American gun problem is related to the individualistic culture that it foments and its disregard for the well being of others so long as the individual in question is doing well. It is about unstable people forsaken by their own communities who in turn lapse into a deep estate depression that goes unchecked and ends in an externalized expression of their anger.

Please don't try to generalize the gun problems caused by the wars on drugs or those derived from territorial conflicts with USA's gun mass killings. They are akin to oil and water.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by monir

Man stabs 22 children in China.

Gun don't kill people. People kill people.

Yes, exactly! Gun is just much more efficient of a tool to kill.

That's the point.

And bombs are more effective than that.

Bath House School Massacre.

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

Mexico's problems are of an entirely different nature it can't be compared to US mass shootings.

For one the problem there is related to the war on drugs and the struggle to control the flow of drugs to the US which yields immense profit. Mexico's problem was Colombia's problem 12 years ago and in the future it will become Bolivia's problem too.

Mexico's gun problem is correlated to the immense profit derived from the sale of illegal drugs, which in turn encourages people to smuggle American guns into the Mexico. Don't forget that the United States suffered the same gun problem at a lesser scale when alcohol and tobacco were prohibited.

The American gun problem is related to the individualistic culture that it foments and its disregard for the well being of others so long as the individual in question is doing well. It is about unstable people forsaken by their own communities who in turn lapse into a deep estate depression that goes unchecked and ends in an externalized expression of their anger.

Please don't try to generalize the gun problems caused by the wars on drugs or those derived from territorial conflicts with USA's gun mass killings. They are akin to oil and water.

No Sugetsu, the Mexican situation is relevent because guns are outlawed there, yet the criminals still have them (they even have weapons that are illegal to own in the US like grenades and rocket launchers).
Therefore it is a good example of a country similar to the US (culturally, and soon ethinically) that has total gun control compared to ours that has limited gun control. I realize the example makes it crystal clear that gun control is ineffective, but that's just the reality of the situation.

The other factor here that is not being discussed is how many guns save lives in the US.
That data is very hard to pin down due to a lack of reporting.
This site is the only one I know of that collects as much of the local news story data that exists on the subject.

http://gunssavelives.net/

So gun ownership in the US is hardly only about mass shootings, hunting, sport shootings, drug gangs, or crime.
It is also about crime prevention and self defense which clearly is done quite often.

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by Traece

This is wrong in so many ways I really don't even want to try and respond to it. First of all, anyone with even a basic knowledge of chemistry could find out how to make an explosive. You'd be surprised how easy it is to get a decent reaction like that. A lot of foiled bomb attempts are a result of getting caught, and sometimes failed detonation. You are severely overestimating the reach and control of the government dealing with elements and compounds required to create explosive reactions, and I suspect you lack knowledge of how an explosion actually physically works. Also, as I've pointed out, there have been several bombings in Europe in the last couple of years. What bothers me the most is your comment about people with mental illnesses. ALL OF MY WHAT is concentrated on this one sentence.

I've been sitting here trying to point out all of the extremely obvious reasons why what you've said really makes no sense at all, but all I can focus on is how little sense it makes. Mental illnesses =/= Mental retardation. It's really as simple as that. I could point out how serial killers are frequently psychopaths and are generally highly intelligent, or how a man with schizophrenia would likely have little trouble making a bomb, but I feel like I just shouldn't have to. I'm just going to leave this here and hope for the best.

I don't really understand how you can't see the necessity of having a clear and focused mind in order to explode a bomb in a public area. It takes careful planning and execution, which is something that a distressed individual lacks, which is why bombs exploding in public areas in the US are an extremely rare occurrence.

Guns facilitate emotional outbursts and most of these mass shootings are exactly that, emotional outbursts. They are handy and don't require mental focus or planing in order to operate successfully.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

No Sugetsu, the Mexican situation is relevent because guns are outlawed there, yet the criminals still have them (they even have weapons that are illegal to own in the US like grenades and rocket launchers).
Therefore it is a good example of a country similar to the US (culturally, and soon ethinically) that has total gun control compared to ours that has limited gun control. I realize the example makes it crystal clear that gun control is ineffective, but that's just the reality of the situation.

Again, using Mexico's gun laws to support your argument is illogical. The gun problems are incompatible. Criminals are not mentally unstable people (in most cases), criminals are people driven by specific goals that are not in accordance with society's laws. In Mexico's specific case these criminals are akin to Al Capone's or Pablo Escobar's ideology and mental health status. These people will do whatever it takes to get their hands on a gun because that is how they can effectively fight their turf war against other cartels and the Mexican government.

[flying ^]

Meanwhile, on the Media front...

To me this sure explains why NBC news (cable division) on was at the forefront in invoking (then overutilized) gun control... basically to restore the "impact" and "luster" it once had.

If the news coverage is any guide, there has been a change of tone in recent years in the public conversation about guns. The two-word phrase “gun control” is being used considerably less often than it was 10 or 20 years ago. But the phrase “gun rights” is being used more often. And the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is being invoked more frequently in the discussion.

In the chart below, I’ve tracked the number of news articles that used the terms “gun control,” “gun rights,” “gun violence” and “Second Amendment” in American newspapers, according to the database NewsLibrary.com. (Because the number of articles in the database changes over time, the figures are normalized to reflect the overall volume of database coverage in any given year, with the numbers representing how often the gun-related phrases were used per 1,000 articles on any subject.)

The usage of all four phrases, but particularly the term “gun control,” has been subject to sharp but temporary shifts based on news events.



In 1993 and 1994, when Congress was debating a ban on assault weapons, the phrase “gun control” was used about three times per 1,000 news articles. Use of the term was even higher after the mass shootings in Columbine, Colo., peaking at 3.7 instances per 1,000 articles in 1999. It reached a low point in 2010, when the term “gun control” was used 0.3 times per 1,000 articles — less than one-tenth as often as in the year after the Columbine shootings.

Averaging the frequency of usage over a five-year period reduces the effect of these news-driven fluctuations and reveals a reasonably clear long-term trend. In recent years, the term “gun control” has been used only about half as often as it was in the 1980s and about one-quarter as often as in the 1990s and early 2000s.



But other phrases related to gun policy have become more common in news coverage.

The term “Second Amendment” was rarely employed in the 1980s, but it has become much more commonplace since then. (Since 2008, the term “Second Amendment” has been used more often than “gun control.”) A related phrase, “gun rights,” has also come into more common usage.

The term “gun violence” peaked in 1999, the year of the Columbine shootings. But it has also been on a long-term increase. Since 2010, it has been used 0.33 times per 1,000 news articles — far more often than during the 1980s, when it was invoked 0.02 times per 1,000 articles.

The change in rhetoric may reflect the increasing polarization in the debate over gun policy. “Gun control,” a relatively neutral term, has been used less and less often. But more politically charged phrases, like “gun violence” and “gun rights,” have become more common. Those who advocate greater restrictions on gun ownership may have determined that their most persuasive argument is to talk about the consequences of increased access to guns — as opposed to the weedy debate about what rights the Second Amendment may or may not convey to gun owners. For opponents of stricter gun laws, the debate has increasingly become one about Constitutional protections. Certainly, many opponents of gun control measures also argue that efforts to restrict gun ownership could backfire in various ways or will otherwise fail to reduce violence. But broadly speaking, they would prefer that the debate be about what they see as Constitutional rights, rather than the utilitarian consequences of gun control measures.

Their strategy may have been working. The polling evidence suggests that the public has gone from tending to back stricter gun control policies to a more ambiguous position in recent years. There may be some voters who think that the Constitution provides broad latitude to own and carry guns – even if the consequences can sometimes be tragic.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/in-public-conversation-on-guns-a-rhetorical-shift/

[monir]

Anyone else got the point of that link I posted about the man stabbing 22 kids in China which happened pretty much half hour prior to the Connecticut incident? I don't think Gundamfan got it cause he just linked me to a bomb article that took place in 1927.

[Traece]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

I don't really understand how you can't see the necessity of having a clear and focused mind in order to explode a bomb in a public area. It takes careful planning an execution, which is something that a distress individual lacks, which is why bombs exploding in public areas in the US are an extremely rare occurrence.

All I can say to this is: Take a psychology class. Intro to Psych should do just fine for helping you understand why "mental disorder" and "having a clear and focused mind" regularly fit together. Mental disorder =/= Crazy people in a big house talking to themselves. This is a misconception you've picked up from the media's portrayal of mental disorders.

I can not stress this enough. Any person who wants to debate a subject that has a lot of crossover into the field of psychology should absolutely attain at least the most basic understanding of how mental disorders are classified and diagnosed. Heck, read it on Wikipedia. At least you'll know a little bit about it. Linkies

[Ithekro]

I am farily certain the Europeans and appearantly the Australians will want to put holes in the theories of "guns saves live". Mostly because they have managed to live in countries that have either strict gun controls or outright banning of said weapons. Some for their entire lives and others only for part of it. They understand how it works in their counties and some have experiance in ours. But I doubt they know everything they need to know.

Especially around rural American where a gun is a tool. Or like people of my parents generation and when Vexx was younger, when guns were something you had, and were trained to handle and respect in school. The days when there was less of this kind of gun violence as there is today when there is relatively no safety instruction in school. Most kids either never see one, or are never taught to respect it or what it can do. There is less disipline in most American societies (save the Christain extremist it seems). I can say I am from the generation that had less disipline, and is got worse the older I got as the schools and teachers could do less and less to students who misbehaved. Actions no longer had consequences that mattered (until one hit the job market after school anyway).

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by monir

Anyone else got the point of that link I posted about the man stabbing 22 kids in China which happened pretty much half hour prior to the Connecticut incident? I don't think Gundamfan got it cause he just linked me to a bomb article that took place in 1927.

No I understood what you were alluding to.
You were trying to make the point that a knife attack is not as dangerous as a gun attack.
The problem with your analogy is that the Osaka School massacre pretty much proves that to not be the case.

I added the 1927 attack because it was the worst in US history and it was done prior to any gun control existing in the United States (pre-1934 NFA). Meaning it was done at a time when you could walk into a Sears RoBuck and buy a Thomson machinegun without any paperwork, liscense, background check, permit etc. and do so across state lines through the postal mail.

None of that can be done anymore due to increased gun control laws, yet the attacks get more frequent and the tallies are getting worse.

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by Traece

All I can say to this is: Take a psychology class. Intro to Psych should do just fine for helping you understand why "mental disorder" and "having a clear and focused mind" regularly fit together. Mental disorder =/= Crazy people in a big house talking to themselves. This is a misconception you've picked up from the media's portrayal of mental disorders.

I can not stress this enough. Any person who wants to debate a subject that has a lot of crossover into the field of psychology should absolutely attain at least the most basic understanding of how mental disorders are classified and diagnosed. Heck, read it on Wikipedia. At least you'll know a little bit about it. Linkies

Seriously... You claim to have knowledge of psychology yet fail to establish a link between depression, anger and suicidal thoughts and a clear mind. If you are a psychologist I am Sigmund Freud.

Anyway, I am not going to argue with you over this anymore.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by monir

Man stabs 22 children in China.

Gun don't kill people. People kill people.

Yes, exactly! Gun is just much more efficient of a tool to kill.

That's the point.

Thing is: No one died in that one.

That Chinese man's Kung Fu is weak.

[NoemiChan]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Thing is: No one died in that one.

That Chinese man's Kung Fu is weak.

That man's a master of acupuncture.. he kept in mind to avoid the vital organs..

Anyway.. regarding "laws"... in the current laws of US., does it have more laws that make its hard for individuals to have a gun legally or does it has more laws that provide individuals easier ways to acquire a gun legally?

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by GenjiChan

That man's a master of acupuncture.. he kept in mind to avoid the vital organs..

Anyway.. regarding "laws"... in the current laws of US., does it have more laws that make its hard for individuals to have a gun legally or does it has more laws that provide individuals easier ways to acquire a gun legally?

Depends on which state you live in, but Federally the laws are restrictions and thus make it more difficult to acquire a weapon.
Here is ATF form 4473 (one of two forms you must file to buy a gun in the US, doesn't include state forms that may be required in addition to this one):

[NoemiChan]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Depends on which state you live in, but Federally the laws are restrictions and thus make it more difficult to acquire a weapon.
Here is ATF form 4473 (one of two forms you must file to buy a gun in the US, doesn't include state forms that may be required in addition to this one):

I see.. In your opinion which is more beneficial for the country based on the current shooting incident... more restrictions or easier legal access to guns?

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Depends on which state you live in, but Federally the laws are restrictions and thus make it more difficult to acquire a weapon.
Here is ATF form 4473 (one of two forms you must file to buy a gun in the US, doesn't include state forms that may be required in addition to this one):

Spoiler:

Where's the field for the person's bank account and/or credit card numbers?

[Ithekro]

The store operator gets those on purchase.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by GenjiChan

I see.. In your opinion which is more beneficial for the country based on the current shooting incident... more restrictions or easier legal access to guns?

Neither.
Stricter enforcement of the mental health requirement is what is needed here.

Here is the other side of form ATF 4473 (back side) with questions you answer under oath/affirm to be true under penalty of perjury/criminal action against you if you lie.



You as a gun buyer take responsibility for the weapon you are purchasing and you are responsible if someone steals it.

We have the laws already on the books here in the US.
The problem is they're not being enforced.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

No I understood what you were alluding to.
You were trying to make the point that a knife attack is not as dangerous as a gun attack.
The problem with your analogy is that the Osaka School massacre pretty much proves that to not be the case.

But that's not a proof since the death toll there is not over 18. (there were "only" 8)

[monir]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

No I understood what you were alluding to.
You were trying to make the point that a knife attack is not as dangerous as a gun attack.
The problem with your analogy is that the Osaka School massacre pretty much proves that to not be the case.

I added the 1927 attack because it was the worst in US history and it was done prior to any gun control existing in the United States (pre-1934 NFA). Meaning it was done at a time when you could walk into a Sears RoBuck and buy a Thomson machinegun without any paperwork, liscense, background check, permit etc. and do so across state lines through the postal mail.

None of that can be done anymore due to increased gun control laws, yet the attacks get more frequent and the tallies are getting worse.

That's a relief though still you haven't got the full point. A knife is much more accessible than a gun even in a country like US and yet the weapon of choice is a gun for these mass killing incident. I want to know why? Yes, these fuckers are insane even to consider killing in mass, but they are doing it with a gun in the US. They aren't using bombs, or knives, or chainsaws, or baseball bats, or poison gas...

I couldn't care less about the politics. All I want to know is how we can make it harder for one of these people who snap for whatever reason, and then go into a killing spree. The first police car responded in two minutes of the first 911 call for the incident at Connecticut and it was still too late. If he was killing those kids with a knife, would that have made a difference? It's a horrible situation. I for one at a complete loss for how to interject in any meaningful way to curve this trend of mass killing we are seeing in US every other week. People are inherently and innately violent. Most of us can reign in and have full control of ourselves even at the height of those certain extreme emotions. At the same time, it's not true for everyone. I just want to see it is made tougher for those handful of people to have access to anything that makes killing in large number so easy.

You know how the world is supposed to end in Dec 21? Well, for those parents their world has ended already.

[maplehurry]

it's no question that if gun is perceived to be inferior to knife, then the whole gun control debate would not even exist (or much more limited). Or why this Adam dude even bothered to steal a gun when he has kitchen knife already accessible. Or why even pro-gun group argue that people could better defend themselves with gun, rather than knife.

Well, one can always argue perception =/= reality.

But if one's really trying, a statistical meta-analysis (over all recorded workplace/school massacres involving knife and gun) could be done. But that's not yet shown here. So if one's really objective, then he cannot really draw any conclusion yet. Unsurprisingly, we already see people (from both sides) taking a stance here with flimsy evidences, it seems.
But if the nay-sayers happen to be correct, then this will be ground breaking discovery...

[synaesthetic]

Of course. Big school shooting and everybody immediately uses it as fuel for whatever political agenda they like best.

I'm not even talking about gun control here. I'm talking about every time there's some highly-publicized shooting or terrorist attack or some malicious act that causes the death of n humans, everybody and their mothers crawl out of the woodwork and start moaning and whining and complaining about how bad The Modern World is.

You know what? Screw everyone who does this crap.

This school shooting is horrible. So many lives lost needlessly. But you know what? This sort of thing is actually fairly rare in The Hated, Evil, Despicable Modern World. Imagine that.

You know what this sort of slaughter was in the dark ages? Tuesday.

We live in a world of free speech, of free inquiry, a world of scientific progress and technology and discovery that's unprecedented in human history. Your average teenage girl carries a smartphone with a thousand times more computing power than the entire US government had thirty years ago. We have instant global communications. We have fast global travel. We have a massive worldwide network containing an archive of much of humanity's data, a literal technological representation of an emergent system--the Internet, which is probably mankind's most awesome achievement to date. We have a souped-up RC car on MARS. We have a giant atom-smashing ring of house-sized electromagnets under the border of Switzerland and France that might tell us how everything works--literally!

The Hated, Evil, Despicable, Worthless, Feckless, Awful, Horrendous, Terrifying Modern World...

... is crazy awesome.

Please, for fuck's sake, don't take this tragedy--and it is a tragedy, and I am legitimately horrified by it--and use it to badmouth the Modern World while strapping on your nostalgia-goggles. Like a black-and-white 1950s TV show, nostalgia does not, and will never accurately represent reality. Don't take this awful incident and use it as a bludgeon to try and jam your round-peg-shaped political agenda du jour into a square hole.