General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[Sugetsu]

The NRA must be so pissed.... There is no way for them to avoid gun control legislation now. This Texas mass shooting is the nail in the coffin for gun debate. If they keep opposing gun control measures they will lose public support, and that would be very bad for business indeed.

Originally Posted by GoddyofAus

This is just staggering. Mass shootings are becoming MONTHLY occurance. How can you tolerate this bullshit as a country??

There is a portion of the country that is "conservative" aka close minded and dead set on their own ways. That includes the idea that society is interconnected and tragedies have ripple effects throughout the fabric of society. It is this disconnection that entitles them to believe they should not suffer any consequences for the wrong doings of others. They hide under ideals such as freedom and the second amendment of the constitution, but no matter how stuck in the past you are life goes on and it will drag you by the feet if need be.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by GoddyofAus

There's been another shooting in Texas on a College Campus. This is breaking news so no reports of deaths as of yet but there are injuries confirmed.

This is just staggering. Mass shootings are becoming MONTHLY occurance. How can you tolerate this bullshit as a country??

You know how when you give someone a twenty, and then yank it back saying "just kidding!", and they get all pissed at you? Something like that. And video games.

[Vexx]

As much as I might think there are legal reasons and intrinsic rights to being able to bear arms, the explosion in accidental shootings keeps ringing a bell that it just may be that Americans are becoming too stupid to own firearms (Idiocracy effect).

However, the uptick in intentional public shootings, to me, are subtle indicator of the instability of our economic environment. Rats in a cage - stress them enough and the outlier rats will go nuts. It doesn't have to be from direct impact ... just the act of floating in a sea of stress. We have a middle class that is eroding away, poor with no infrastructure. Chronic unemployment coupled with corporations who won't hire the unemployed if they are hiring at all. No infrastructure for secure healthcare, mental or physical. The employed fear for their jobs and the corporations demoralize them on a daily basis. The list goes on and on.

In that kind of corrosive pool, the marginals will tend to ignite.

[Kaijo]

Because we're cowering in fear, like they want us to. There is always a boogyman that we have to be afraid, even if they have to invent. Whether it's a gun-armed intruder or the government, you won't be safe unless we flood the streets with guns.

My thought is... where are the crimes committed with RPGs? Why aren't are planes shot down with shoulder-mounted stinger missiles? Those things are about the size of a large rifle, and thus be easy to sneak into the US. Answer: they are tightly regulated and controlled. And thus, our theaters and schools and aircraft aren't being blown up.

Edit: Was this campus a gun free zone? Were the two shooters just being honest citizens protecting themselves? And a few people were just unlucky enough to be caught up in it?

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

And I always chuckle that the answer has to be guns. There are easily a dozen different ways to stop someone without using a gun. Non-lethal, which means no one else need be put at risk. And yet the answer you always get is: more guns. Why?

Because corporations want to sell more guns.

The honest discussion has to acknowledge there really are safer ways of protection.

Give me one.

No, seriously. I am honestly asking for this, because if you can produce it, I'll immediately start making use of it.

Give me a method of self-defense that will protect me from an assailant with a gun, that is superior to my own gun. Something that has equal range, power, reliability and accuracy to an automatic pistol.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Give me one.

No, seriously. I am honestly asking for this, because if you can produce it, I'll immediately start making use of it.

Give me a method of self-defense that will protect me from an assailant with a gun, that is superior to my own gun. Something that has equal range, power, reliability and accuracy to an automatic pistol.

Serious question: have you ever fired a gun at a person?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Solace

Serious question: have you ever fired a gun at a person?

I can say I have ... once (armed burglary). They fired, I fired back, they ran (I suppose they hadn't expected return fire). In all other cases (other burglaries, attempted muggings or one case of encountering the start of a sexual assault), simply the awareness I had a gun ended the confrontation (they ran).

Oh, and none of those are on any "statistical data" opposing gun ownership (outside of the actual firefight incident). The data on the deterrence effect simply hasn't been studied seriously. There is enormous anecdotal evidence but, to date, only the researchers Kleck or Lott have taken a serious look and they're dismissed as not fitting the narrative.

That's why I was hoping some of our posters might stop and play "opposite day" and look for data supporting a position different than their own, like any good debate team does.

Calling 911 does not prevent crime or violence. In a land where police protection is thin or functionally non-existent, people need ways to defend themselves. They shouldn't have to cower behind fortress walls or fear highway banditry. Women shouldn't have to fear men because of the size/strength differential. Take effective weaponry away and, sure, I can defend myself but my wife wouldn't be able to defend herself. And as I age, I'll be less able to.

The person who comes up with a reliable non-lethal solution, I think, stands to make a lot of money. Because most people don't *want* to kill anyone, they just want to neutralize them so the police can sweep up the mess when they do finally arrive.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Edit: Was this campus a gun free zone? Were the two shooters just being honest citizens protecting themselves? And a few people were just unlucky enough to be caught up in it?

Considering that college campuses are certainly gun free zones, a couple people having a shoot out in the middle of it sounds to me like some preexisting disagreements, perhaps of the criminal type.

Originally Posted by Solace

Serious question: have you ever fired a gun at a person?

Yes, and to syn, no there isn't, although automatic pistols aren't very accurate, but then I'm pretty sure you're talking about semi-autos.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by GoddyofAus

There's been another shooting in Texas on a College Campus. This is breaking news so no reports of deaths as of yet but there are injuries confirmed.

This is just staggering. Mass shootings are becoming MONTHLY occurance. How can you tolerate this bullshit as a country??

News Video:

Spoiler:

And y'know...

Playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here... more shootings leads to more gun sales. Recently, this is a direct correlation. For the sake of more gun profits, let there be more shootings!



But, on a more serious note...

* How many pay attention to what the rest of the world thinks about America's "gun problem"?
* How many think the rest of the world have any solid opinion on the matter?

At the personal level, when we have a problem, that's why we have friends. They have outside perspective on some things. This applies on a more national scale too.

[Vexx]

A great many of the "college shooting" incidents turn out to be between people who are not related to the college but simply happen to be on campus. Any major university in a large city has this problem with gangs playing turf games, or outside disputes being acted out on campus. It is misleading of the media (sensationalism for the lose). I'm getting really really tired of this media meme of "constructing a narrative and sticking to it even when the facts contradict it"). I'd like to slap whoever it is teaching this "narrative" thing. It seems to be mostly American (well, statist/communist is where else I see it - China, for example).

But, on a more serious note...

* How many pay attention to what the rest of the world thinks about America's "gun problem"?
* How many think the rest of the world have any solid opinion on the matter?

I think its certainly *useful* to look at other countries and see how their experience with armed/unarmed citizenry has gone. But often, controlling variables are not easy to pin down (culturally homogenous countries, for example, don't map well with plurality cultured countries. Economic conditions, infrastructure, etc).

I see that most people assume the "way it is in their neighborhood" is the way it is around the world, which is false. It results in a centric notion that their solutions will work everywhere. I've traveled around enough to know that isn't the case.

[Dr. Casey]

Originally Posted by Solace

We failed a long time ago. Here's an example:

http://forums.animesuki.com/picture....ictureid=49171

I copied and pasted the URL, but it still doesn't bring up a picture.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Give me one.

No, seriously, I am honestly asking for this, because if you can produce it, I'll immediately start making use of it.

Give me a method of self-defense that will protect me from an assailant with a gun, that is superior to my own gun. Something that has equal range, power, reliability and accuracy to an automatic pistol.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16710...were-dead.html

Mostly a bit of humor, but I like the electrified shotgun shells. :P

For other possibilities, you could always check wikipedia:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-lethal_weapon

Though, as I've said before, I prefer blinding and sonic weapons. Don't need to worry about accuracy so much, and in the case of some sonic weapons, in can work through objects. Granted, a lot of this is difficult to obtain, which is why I want the conversation to shift. Instead of talking about arming teachers with guns, let's get this non-lethal stuff approved. If bad guys knew they could be taken easily and stillstand trial, they might be less willing to try something.

But for the moment, you might consider different ammo like rubber bullets. Or even blanks. As Vexx pointed out, just the sight (and/or sound) is enough to scare someone off. Most thieves will run. And as a bonus, if someone takes your gun, you can rush him as he attempts to shoot you with blanks. No one would expect that. :P

Originally Posted by Vexx

The person who comes up with a reliable non-lethal solution, I think, stands to make a lot of money. Because most people don't *want* to kill anyone, they just want to neutralize them so the police can sweep up the mess when they do finally arrive.

The gun manufacturers may not like their source of revenue drying up, so they'd probably meddle. Just like big oil isn't thrilled about alternatives.

[Vexx]

To align with Kaijo's last post, I found this article to be well-written on the subject of human behavior in firefights. Most of our "professional" law enforcement get *zero* of the kind of training they need to be effective in violent situations. They're just "authorized" to use violence, not trained.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/16...wed-instincts/

Heh, be aware blanks can be lethal at close range. I recall an actor accidentally offing himself in a goofy moment with a blank while filiming (put the gun to his head and fired).

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here... more shootings leads to more gun sales. Recently, this is a direct correlation. For the sake of more gun profits, let there be more shootings!

Hmm, there's also a direct correlation between people and gun shootings too. If we wipe out humanity, there will be no more gun shootings too.

At the personal level, when we have a problem, that's why we have friends. They have outside perspective on some things. This applies on a more national scale too.

It is fair. Clearly, this country has problems that are unique to its own that are clearly very embarrassing, and I would say we are far behind other countries in certain areas, especially regarding personal freedom. Constantly touting the US is #1 blindly is why a large portion of the world hates us. But it should also be known that laws should be also made in context, and this often gets glossed over by people on all sides of the equation.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Give me one.

No, seriously. I am honestly asking for this, because if you can produce it, I'll immediately start making use of it.

Give me a method of self-defense that will protect me from an assailant with a gun, that is superior to my own gun. Something that has equal range, power, reliability and accuracy to an automatic pistol.

Which makes me think of riots. Even without guns, a large group of hooligans will be able to do heavy damage and outnumber victims. It takes a long time for police to be able to contain a large enough group, so... "you're on your own" may strike a lot in these situations.

In b4 someone claims riots are outliers...

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I can say I have ... once (armed burglary). They fired, I fired back, they ran (I suppose they hadn't expected return fire). In all other cases (other burglaries, attempted muggings or one case of encountering the start of a sexual assault), simply the awareness I had a gun ended the confrontation (they ran).

Oh, and none of those are on any "statistical data" opposing gun ownership (outside of the actual firefight incident). The data on the deterrence effect simply hasn't been studied seriously. There is enormous anecdotal evidence but, to date, only the researchers Kleck or Lott have taken a serious look and they're dismissed as not fitting the narrative.

That's why I was hoping some of our posters might stop and play "opposite day" and look for data supporting a position different than their own, like any good debate team does.

Calling 911 does not prevent crime or violence. In a land where police protection is thin or functionally non-existent, people need ways to defend themselves. They shouldn't have to cower behind fortress walls or fear highway banditry. Women shouldn't have to fear men because of the size/strength differential. Take effective weaponry away and, sure, I can defend myself but my wife wouldn't be able to defend herself. And as I age, I'll be less able to.

The person who comes up with a reliable non-lethal solution, I think, stands to make a lot of money. Because most people don't *want* to kill anyone, they just want to neutralize them so the police can sweep up the mess when they do finally arrive.

Fair enough. The first lesson I had regarding guns was "never point at something you don't intend to shoot". Of course, having met a lot of gun owners, many fit into the "it's a deterrent", as if having one is enough. They certainly don't take other precautions, like leaving lights on, changing up behaviors, not advertising nice stuff, and so on. Some do, but they're usually older and have learned from unfortunate experiences. I'm lucky to live in a fairly safe town though. Our police force is very well equipped and very responsive (almost ridiculously so). But I know many towns don't have that luxury, and I've had the unfortunate experience of being on the wrong end of a gun more than once. It's a terrifying thing.

As a personal opinion, I'd say we need more and better trained law enforcement. I know that ruffles the feathers of those worried about police militarization, and not every cop is good, but having so few police for so many people is not good no matter how you cut it (I make a similar observation about Congress). I wouldn't feel out of place in suggesting more reforms to our police/legal systems. There are a lot of divisions, like human trafficking, that just don't have the support they need. A common complaint in white collar crime is that regulators have been denied the funding and enforcement powers they need to be aggressive in doing their jobs. And of course, there's the for profit system, which is all kinds of no good.

But these are social reforms, which indirectly should help curtail gun crime (and crime in general) without the silly ideas like banning "assault weapons" and feeding the paranoid delusions of self-appointed minute men. The bigger picture is a mess, but I don't believe we're doing anyone a favor by focusing so strongly on small parts of the problem.

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

I copied and pasted the URL, but it still doesn't bring up a picture.

Try this link.

[Kaijo]

I dislike the attitude of, "Well, everyone else in the world is different, so their solutions won't work here, so we should never try." True, some of them might not, but we won't know until we try. The assault weapons ban didn't really work (well, was watered down a lot by the NRA), but we wouldn't have known until we tried; also means that trying that again doesn't make too much sense. But Jon Stewart pointed out that we came down drinking and driving with a lot of regulation and enforcement. As a result, the rate of DUIs has dropped tremendously. We've banned stinger missiles, and thus we don't see our planes shot down as they take off or land.

Sometimes, the US can learn from other countries, but I guess our arrogance gets in the way.

Oh, as for arming teachers... if we have police who react poorly under fire, how well do you think a teacher will?

[Vexx]

A teacher? It will depend greatly on each individual but I consider arming teachers as a policy to be a bad idea. If he or she wants to get a CCW, take appropriate training courses, dedicate time to that particular martial art? Hey, whatever.

But I think it is a lot cheaper and more effective to make sure schools aren't "lock them inside" prisons so people can get out of each classroom ... an emergency exit.

Too many schools are built with the notion of controlling children in a lock up rather than protecting them. Often the windows don't even open. They're strengthened glass, sometimes with internal mesh. Some schools actually have to send their kids home if the air conditioning fails because they can't open the bleeping windows.

A large point of the value of a CCW is that the perp doesn't *know* who has a weapon. An armed guard (some poor schmuck given a few day's of orientation and handed a gun) is just painted with a target that says "shoot me first".

The "stupid" is coming from the left and the right on this topic (said the "pro-gun progressive", there's actually quite a number of us thanks)

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

I dislike the attitude of, "Well, everyone else in the world is different, so their solutions won't work here, so we should never try." True, some of them might not, but we won't know until we try. The assault weapons ban didn't really work (well, was watered down a lot by the NRA), so trying that again doesn't make too much sense. But Jon Stewart pointed out that we came down drinking and driving with a lot of regulation and enforcement. As a result, the rate of DUIs has dropped tremendously. We've banned stinger missiles, and thus we don't see planes shot down.

Sometimes, the US can learn from other countries, but I guess our arrogance gets in the way.

Which is why I bring up "Context" and not "cultural relativism", the later of which shields a nation from all kinds of criticism just because it is the way it is. Then again logic isn't prized in this country, so we get this kind of shit.

The campaign with drunk driving was not solely done by mere enforcement, though it sure as hell helped. What it also ensured was a large campaign of information. Commercials that showed the destructive effects of drunk driving, posters plastered everywhere, and news and tv shows going into the tragedies caused by it. In some cases they would resort to scare tactics that worked. Eventually it became ingrained that drunk driving was not only a dangerous thing to do, but it was an evil thing to do. Thus encouraging responsibility on people's part.

If only they had put that kind of effort into drugs. :S

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Vexx

A teacher? It will depend greatly on each individual but I consider arming teachers as a policy to be a bad idea.

Yep. Many know about all those stories about teachers getting caught in those sex scandals... the likes of which some may describe as a student's wet dream... LOL

Now, imagine what would happen IF/(hopefully not When) some stressed out teacher turns to the gun and less out stress in that way. Having that kind of policy is asking for trouble.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Give me one.

No, seriously. I am honestly asking for this, because if you can produce it, I'll immediately start making use of it.

Give me a method of self-defense that will protect me from an assailant with a gun, that is superior to my own gun. Something that has equal range, power, reliability and accuracy to an automatic pistol.

Hmm, a combination of a taser and a German Shepard? Better sensory perception, visible deterrent, two threats for an attacker and some ranged ability.

Originally Posted by Vexx

A large point of the value of a CCW is that the perp doesn't *know* who has a weapon. An armed guard (some poor schmuck given a few day's of orientation and handed a gun) is just painted with a target that says "shoot me first".

The "stupid" is coming from the left and the right on this topic (said the "pro-gun progressive", there's actually quite a number of us thanks)

Unfortunately CCW doesn't make the owner immune to insanity. At what point does the advantage of having people around that can take down a perp get overtaken by the risk of them actually becoming the perp?

Still there is something to the idea. Armed undercover sky marshals have been a very effective deterrent against plane hijackings. But can an undercover guard/cop function at a school?