General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Asuras

Understandable. Nevertheless, I still wonder what someone would need from a semi-automatic rifle besides killing... a lot. A pistol at the very least has few bullets, and is a lower caliber.

Actually, handgun calibers are much larger A 9mm round is.. well, 9mm in diameter, a 5.56 (.223) rifle round on the other hand is, well, 5.56mm in diameter. The difference is that rifles rounds have much higher muzzle velocity.

Originally Posted by GoddyofAus

Perhaps that is a bigger part of the problem then you realise. The Americans seem to find it convenient to forget that the Constitution is hundreds of years old, written in an era of Tyranny and bloodshed.

This hundreds of years old piece of paper has made it very easy for gun enthusiasts and the NRA to paint Freedom and being armed to the teeth as the same thing. You can't have one without the other apparently.

You'll forgive me if I call bullshit.

You are entitle to think it's bullshit, but you'll excuse me if I find your view overly simplistic and quite ignorant.

Your attempt to generalize every American as constitutional literalist is not constructive to the debate, nor is ignoring all the good and accomplishments the US Constitution has had over the years achieve anything other than sheer provocation.

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

Indeed. There are things in that Constitution which should just be thrown out of the window because the reality has irreversibly changed since 1776.

Good thing there is a mechanic to do so if the people should decide to do so, but it certainly is not going to happen just because some foreigners disapproves

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Actually, handgun calibers are much larger A 9mm round is.. well, 9mm in diameter, a 5.56 (.223) rifle round on the other hand is, well, 5.56mm in diameter. The difference is that rifles rounds have much higher muzzle velocity.

Oh yea, the bullets themselves. Reduce the amount of gunpowder per bullet.

[Ithekro]

You'll forgive me if I call bullshit.

I will not.

If only because there are laws that are just as old or older on pieces of paper that hold your Commonwealth together.

If the Constitution is to be changed, it will be because of a majority of the people want it to change. Not before. Because those are the rules.

[GoddyofAus]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Actually, handgun calibers are much larger A 9mm round is.. well, 9mm in diameter, a 5.56 (.223) rifle round on the other hand is, well, 5.56mm in diameter. The difference is that rifles rounds have much higher muzzle velocity.




You are entitle to think it's bullshit, but you'll excuse me if I find your view overly simplistic and quite ignorant.

Your attempt to generalize every American as constitutional literalist is not constructive to the debate, nor is ignoring all the good and accomplishments the US Constitution has had over the years achieve anything other than sheer provocation.

Your attempts to paint me as an Ameri-hater are getting pretty tired. Maybe this is another problem as well; There seem to be a lot of Americans who see themselves as above criticism. If any foreigner has something negative to say about your country, our opinion is automatically moot, is it? Perhaps that's why your Foreign Policy is a fiasco and Julian Assange is number one on your hit list.

For all the U.S constitutions "accomplishments", its archaic nature has led to numerous unnecessary missteps. Australia is just as free as the U.S and we don't have a constitution. How did we find it so easy to achieve without a document that permits the blanket armament of an entire populace?

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I will not.

If only because there are laws that are just as old or older on pieces of paper that hold your Commonwealth together.

If the Constitution is to be changed, it will be because of a majority of the people want it to change. Not before. Because those are the rules.

We don't have any documents that state the public has a right to be armed at all times against an opponent that doesn't exist. If that opponent were ever to exist, that is a different story, but in peace time? You're drawing a long bow.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Oh yea, the bullets themselves. Reduce the amount of gunpowder per bullet.

It doesn't really work that way, and certainly wouldn't achieve your aim of reducing lethality in these type of scenarios.

Simply reducing the amount of gunpowder would render the weapons inoperable in some cases, and wouldn't make any meaningful change in lethality in close range shootings anyway.

Originally Posted by GoddyofAus

Your attempts to paint me as an Ameri-hater are getting pretty tired.

I'm not painting you as anything, you're doing all the work yourself.

Maybe this is another problem as well; There seem to be a lot of Americans who see themselves as above criticism. If any foreigner has something negative to say about your country, our opinion is automatically moot, is it? Perhaps that's why your Foreign Policy is a fiasco and Julian Assange is number one on your hit list.

Sigh, I'm not sure if we're even reading the same thing. The particular post of yours which I quoted there had all of zero content other than sheer bashing of the US, what sort of constructive discussion were you hoping to generate with that? And no, just because I called you out on it, doesn't mean I consider your opinion to be moot, I just consider it to be... uninformed.

I'd like to think that I've had ample opportunities to look at the issue from multiple angles. I hold a dual citizenship, and I've lived my life equally in both, with one that has the right to bear arms, and another that bans civilian gun ownership, I've lived through martial laws, and have fought in wars, so I'd like to think my opinion isn't formed by a simple "hey he bashed america! he's wrong lololol".

Australia is just as free as the U.S and we don't have a constitution. How did we find it so easy to achieve without a document that permits the blanket armament of an entire populace?

Yea, says the country whose censorship policy is looking more and more like China's every day

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

If the Constitution is to be changed, it will be because of a majority of the people want it to change. Not before. Because those are the rules.

Per design, Constitutional change takes generations -- as it should be. Last thing we want - a Constitution that can change on a whim; as that would provide an avenue for those who seek power -- to outright take it. A Constitution defined as the "law of the land" completely trumps that.

[Rising Dragon]

From what I can see, most proposed gun control laws are just "take away everyone's guns!" which isn't really viable. It CAN be done, sure, but if a criminal wants/needs a weapon, chances are he's going to get one--they're not forced to go through legitimate means, after all, they're criminals. And the end result of THAT is just law-abiding citizens getting gunned down by criminals who don't give a flying fuck about a gun control law. It'd only really make things easier for them.

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by GoddyofAus

Your attempts to paint me as an Ameri-hater are getting pretty tired. Maybe this is another problem as well; There seem to be a lot of Americans who see themselves as above criticism. If any foreigner has something negative to say about your country, our opinion is automatically moot, is it? Perhaps that's why your Foreign Policy is a fiasco and Julian Assange is number one on your hit list.

For all the U.S constitutions "accomplishments", its archaic nature has led to numerous unnecessary missteps. Australia is just as free as the U.S and we don't have a constitution. How did we find it so easy to achieve without a document that permits the blanket armament of an entire populace?




We don't have any documents that state the public has a right to be armed at all times against an opponent that doesn't exist. If that opponent were ever to exist, that is a different story, but in peace time? You're drawing a long bow.

You do have a Constitution as well. Constitution of Australia.

The article does point out that there was talk of a Bill of Rights in 1898, but it was figured the British system of traditional rights and freedoms would hold well enough.

As a result, the Australian Constitution has often been criticised for its scant protection of rights and freedoms.

Take that however you will.


The US Constitution has been though the Supreme Courts many times and has been altered many times. When the people will it to change, it will change as per the rules. Not before. That is why we have ammendments to the Constitution in the first place.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Rising Dragon

From what I can see, most proposed gun control laws are just "take away everyone's guns!" which isn't really viable. It CAN be done, sure, but if a criminal wants/needs a weapon, chances are he's going to get one--they're not forced to go through legitimate means, after all, they're criminals. And the end result of THAT is just law-abiding citizens getting gunned down by criminals who don't give a flying fuck about a gun control law. It'd only really make things easier for them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...united-states/

Read Point #11 please.

[Rising Dragon]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...united-states/

Read Point #11 please.

And?

I know it's a popular notion. I'm just saying that it's a notion that strikes me as neither truly viable nor particularly safe in the long run.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Rising Dragon

And?

I know it's a popular notion. I'm just saying that it's a notion that's neither truly viable nor safe.

Even though I am in favor of gun control and regulation -- I am not in favor of taking guns away. Just certain ones - the most dangerous ones.

The fact of the matter: people who have committed these mass killings acquired weaponry legally. They become criminals after said shootings. By then, it's already too late.

And to anyone advocating needing guns to fight against the army -- you're going to need more than yourself and your gun. Don't forget about tanks, artillery, and air power. On that note, I haven't watched Girls and Panzer yet.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

The fact of the matter: people who have committed these mass killings acquired weaponry legally. They become criminals after said shootings. By then, it's already too late.

And that brings us to the (more productive IMO) discussion of whether these type of issues is really a gun control issue or social/cultural issue, of which there was some interesting debates a few months ago earlier in the thread with good points on both sides.

TBH, a discussion on gun control that purely focuses on the guns without addressing the underlying societal issues is just an exercise in futility.

[willx]

Originally Posted by kyp275

That's not my argument, which was that the proliferation of guns in the US wasn't caused by gun laws, but rather that it was due to the fact that it has always been an integral party of the nation since before its founding.

Guns were built by hand before they were mass produced, bullets are also super easy to make. You're simply not gonna be able to regulate them away, it would require a conscious movement of society to move away from guns, which is how it should be anyway.

Point 1: Still not sure what you're getting at. I never made any note about gun laws in Canada either at that point in time. The "wild wild west" and "race to the coast" was filled with guns on both sides of the border. And I already said, it doesn't matter if they proliferated prior to and during the founding of the nation, it's whether that in and of itself is outdated now or not.

Point 2: That's just reduction to the absurd. You're saying there wouldn't be fewer guns around if people had to manufacture them by hand!? You totally can regulate things into oblivion. It's happened before. Also remember the abolishment of slavery passed by only a margin of 2 votes in congress. The "southern states" also didn't get to vote on this while they were still in sedition btw..

Reply hazy, ask again later

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by kyp275

And that brings us to the (more productive IMO) discussion of whether these type of issues is really a gun control issue or social/cultural issue, of which there was some interesting debates a few months ago earlier in the thread with good points on both sides.

TBH, a discussion on gun control that purely focuses on the guns without addressing the underlying societal issues is just an exercise in futility.

Both. You have to make sure guns (and super-cheap ammunition) aren't just wildly flying around out there, *and* you also have to address poor socioeconomic conditions that are conducive to creating criminals. Though considering that one of the downsides to a free market is ever increasing marginalization of lower class brackets in a vicious cycle (the weird tax laws that determine those brackets don't help), I don't see the root of the problem going away anytime soon. And if I haven't been clear enough, the root of a lot of crime is poverty and lack of education. A simple problem that lacks a simple (and cost-effective) solution.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by kyp275

And that brings us to the (more productive IMO) discussion of whether these type of issues is really a gun control issue or social/cultural issue, of which there was some interesting debates a few months ago earlier in the thread with good points on both sides.

TBH, a discussion on gun control that purely focuses on the guns without addressing the underlying societal issues is just an exercise in futility.

So, scouring the Internets. Those opposing gun legislation often say: "Guns aren't the problem". Personally, it's the same old crap each and every time.

In a similar sense, I would make the case about video games: "Video games aren't the problem". I've played some FPS games and still come out fine. Though mentally, the thought have crossed my mind to go out and just randomly shoot. Thankfully, I'm a very stable case. *twitch*

I can stop myself. Obviously, there have been people throughout the history of this discussion -- who could not and have acted upon these mental tendencies.

The problem is: we cannot stop them until it is too late.

So, I ask: What is the solution to this?

In the news thread: I mentioned fencing around schools. Of course, that'll take money... tax dollars that should be spent towards the education of children. After Columbine, high schools have responded by increasing security around its properties.

I've also thought about a system of Gun Insurance and Licensing. Want to own a gun? Want to maintain the status quo? Pay for it (in terms of liabilities and damages)! We as a society pays for each of these incidents in the form of blood. Individually, gun owners are not responsible; but they are responsible for maintaining the politics that allows these incidents to occur.

[GoddyofAus]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

So, scouring the Internets. Those opposing gun legislation often say: "Guns aren't the problem". Personally, it's the same old crap each and every time.

In a similar sense, I would make the case about video games: "Video games aren't the problem". I've played some FPS games and still come out fine. Though mentally, the thought have crossed my mind to go out and just randomly shoot. Thankfully, I'm a very stable case. *twitch*

I can stop myself. Obviously, there have been people throughout the history of this discussion -- who could not and have acted upon these mental tendencies.

The problem is: we cannot stop them until it is too late.

So, I ask: What is the solution to this?

In the news thread: I mentioned fencing around schools. Of course, that'll take money... tax dollars that should be spent towards the education of children. After Columbine, high schools have responded by increasing security around its properties.

I've also thought about a system of Gun Insurance and Licensing. Want to own a gun? Want to maintain the status quo? Pay for it (in terms of liabilities and damages)! We as a society pays for each of these incidents in the form of blood. Individually, gun owners are not responsible; but they are responsible for maintaining the politics that allows these incidents to occur.

I think enough of a song and dance was made about Obamacare, let alone doing the same with the guns. We would never hear the end of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gSQg1i_q2g

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by willx

Point 1: Still not sure what you're getting at. =

The comment was not to say whether it's good or not, merely that it's simply how it began, as many in this thread seems to be thinking that gun proliferation is a relative recent occurance.

Point 2: That's just reduction to the absurd. You're saying there wouldn't be fewer guns around if people had to manufacture them by hand!? You totally can regulate things into oblivion. It's happened before. Also remember the abolishment of slavery passed by only a margin of 2 votes in congress. The "southern states" also didn't get to vote on this while they were still in sedition btw..

Nope, never said that, all I'm saying is that there will still be guns even if it's completely outlawed. Will fewer guns leads to fewer killing by guns? almost certainly, but you can't look at it in a bubble and ignore the other ramifications.

You bring up the issue of slavery, yet what did it end up taking to resolve that issue? the bloodiest war in US history.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

So, scouring the Internets. Those opposing gun legislation often say: "Guns aren't the problem". Personally, it's the same old crap each and every time.

In a similar sense, I would make the case about video games: "Video games aren't the problem". I've played some FPS games and still come out fine. Though mentally, the thought have crossed my mind to go out and just randomly shoot. Thankfully, I'm a very stable case. *twitch*

I can stop myself. Obviously, there have been people throughout the history of this discussion -- who could not and have acted upon these mental tendencies.

The problem is: we cannot stop them until it is too late.

So, I ask: What is the solution to this?

In the news thread: I mentioned fencing around schools. Of course, that'll take money... tax dollars that should be spent towards the education of children. After Columbine, high schools have responded by increasing security around its properties.

I've also thought about a system of Gun Insurance and Licensing. Want to own a gun? Want to maintain the status quo? Pay for it (in terms of liabilities and damages)! We as a society pays for each of these incidents in the form of blood. Individually, gun owners are not responsible; but they are responsible for maintaining the politics that allows these incidents to occur.

RE: Fence: That pretty much happen in almost all NYC schools, given many of the NYC schools are prone to violence except for the schools in better neighborhoods and "magnet schools" (I.E Need a exam to get in)

TBH, when Columbine happened, many of us then Highschool students were unsuprised--after all, some of our neighborhood schools lose 1-2 students to guns or knives each year. We only cynically joked about it as "It is only a problem if a white suburban kid gets killed"

Today's mass shooting did break a new barrier though, that is shooting in an elementary school...

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by kyp275

You bring up the issue of slavery, yet what did it end up taking to resolve that issue? the bloodiest war in US history.

Yet, the cultural effects of that -- still echos today.

[Asuras]

Originally Posted by kyp275

The comment was not to say whether it's good or not, merely that it's simply how it began, as many in this thread seems to be thinking that gun proliferation is a relative recent occurance.

In fact it's quite the opposite as evident in the link Kyuu posted earlier; guns possession is on the decline.