Gun Debate Megathread V1: My country is better than yours - General

So here's a thread I made to contain all of the gun debate stuff going on in SH whenever something terrible happens, quite frankly its distasteful and shows an appalling lack of respect/sympathy from people who would rather talk about their political views. Its inspired by a thread of the same topic from the old Mass Debate subforum. This thread is neither pro nor anti gun, all are welcome. I guess ill start, I believe that gun ownership is not inherently bad or backwards, as long as procedures are followed and they are stored properly there is nothing inherently wrong with owning one for self defense or just to have. Gun accidents happen, they happen because people don't know how to use them properly or use them irresponsibly, in the same way that using a bat irresponsibly can hurt you. Some countries do not allow their citizens to own or use guns and that's fine, if it works it works. I do not believe that removing guns from american society will solve anything, people who want guns for nefarious purposes will get them regardless of whether or not they are illegal, the same way I can get pot even though its not legal in my state. Gangs with fully automatic weapons manufacture and machine their own guns, these are illegal in every sense, but that doesn't stop people from using these makeshift guns.

Tbh I really don't see what's wrong with debating solutions to problems. Posts like "condolences to the victims" I find even worse, because it's literally nothing. It's just inappropriate for that thread because it turned out to not be related to private ownership of guns. Also my position is weird. I'm pro-gun but just out of principal, I don't think more private gun ownership really has any benefits for society.

Im not a fan of guns but i agree that mental health treatment in this country is a huge factor. What ticks me off is that many Republicans politicians push this narrative thats its not guns, its mental health, but then cripple any bill that would improve healthcare, such as budgets to mental health care and the such.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51440963]Tbh I really don't see what's wrong with debating solutions to problems. Posts like "condolences to the victims" I find even worse, because it's literally nothing. It's just inappropriate for that thread because it turned out to not be related to private ownership of guns. Also my position is weird. I'm pro-gun but just out of principal, I don't think more private gun ownership really has any benefits for society.[/QUOTE] Do guns benefit society in the hands of private citizens? No, but neither do fireworks for example, but people still buy and use both of these things, even if its just to practice on the range or celebrate some occasion.

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;51441052]I think the way Canada handles it is just fine. You want your first gun? Take a short course on gun safety. If you truly want it, why should this be a problem?[/QUOTE] Since there are no anti gunners yet I think the reason people feel guns should be restricted to police and military use is because a gun is a relatively simple tool to operate while the knowledge needed to operate it safely and responsibly requires some small amount of training which is why gun accidents are a thing. You can pick up a rake and pretty much know how to use it expertly within a minute, guns on the other hand are deceptively simple tools that while maybe not mechanically complicated the logistics, planning and situational awareness of safe gun use is a big part of using a gun proficiently.

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;51441052]I think the way Canada handles it is just fine. You want your first gun? Take a short course on gun safety. If you truly want it, why should this be a problem?[/QUOTE] If a madman/terrorist/irrational ass has a knife they can kill 0-4 people. If that same person has a gun they can kill much more. Its about reducing potential damage. The self defence thing (mentioning now coz it will no doubt pop up) is wrong since [url]http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222[/url] also [url]https://www.usafirearmtraining.com/politics/do-good-guys-stop-bad-guys-with-guns/[/url] [quote]According to the FBI’s report on active shooter events between 2000 and 2013, only about 3 percent were stopped by a civilian with a gun.[/quote] And most of those were civilian security personnel on duty. Sure its a cool hobby and a fun thing to enjoy (I shoot shotguns in uk, I'd like to try actual rifle at some point) but the self defence argument is bs and the collateral to society is somewhat high. High guns per capita might work in switzerland but in the US for whatever reason people tend to use guns to kill other people far more than any other developed country. [t]http://26t4l93f9dhe439yxm286lpv.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GunViolence2.png[/t] Comparable to pakistan in fact. Pakistan has Karachi and practically a civil war in the nothern regions. 2nd amendment arguments are BS since it was meant to be protection against tyrannical government and implied the people could be similarly armed so that would have people having predator drones, nukes and javelin missiles. All that said guns are fun/cool/feel empowering and there are so many in the US that any kind of cut down would be pointless and impossible, guns are part of America's culture and perhaps even part of American people's identity (the self made, rugged individualistic man; overcoming all adversity using his pistol. Freedums). The NRA and gun lobby in general + all the people who like playing with guns + all the people who only feel safe while carrying a deadly weapon + militia types oppose any sensible discussion on the matter (gun owner database) In my mind a solution might be one of the following. National database of fire arms and fire arm owners. Track any changing in gun ownership. IF a gun is used in a crime then find who last owned it. Disallow guns in cities, people have to keep guns in shooting ranges or have an exclusive licence. Maybe request permit if you plan to do hunting with your guns or plan to use them outside your property. IF someone intends to counter this post please address all the points rather than picking 1 then patting yourself on the back for your wicked zinger.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51441126]If a madman/terrorist/irrational ass has a knife they can kill 0-4 people. If that same person has a gun they can kill much more. Its about reducing potential damage. The self defence thing (mentioning now coz it will no doubt pop up) is wrong since [url]http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222[/url] also [url]https://www.usafirearmtraining.com/politics/do-good-guys-stop-bad-guys-with-guns/[/url] And most of those were civilian security personnel on duty. Sure its a cool hobby and a fun thing to enjoy but the self defence argument is bs and the collateral to society is somewhat high. High guns per capita might work in switzerland but in the US for whatever reason people tend to use guns to kill other people far more than any other developed country. [t]http://26t4l93f9dhe439yxm286lpv.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GunViolence2.png[/t] Comparable to pakistan in fact. Pakistan has Karachi and practically a civil war in the nothern regions. 2nd amendment arguments are BS since it was meant to be protection against tyrannical government and implied the people could be similarly armed so that would have people having predator drones, nukes and javelin missiles. All that said guns are fun/cool/feel empowering and there are so many in the US that any kind of cut down would be pointless and impossible, guns are part of America's culture and perhaps even part of American people's identity (the self made, rugged individualistic man; overcoming all adversity using his pistol. Freedums). The NRA and gun lobby in general + all the people who like playing with guns + all the people who only feel safe while carrying a deadly weapon + militia types oppose any sensible discussion on the matter (gun owner database) In my mind a solution might be one of the following. National database of fire arms and fire arm owners. Track any changing in gun ownership. IF a gun is used in a crime then find who last owned it. Disallow guns in cities, people have to keep guns in shooting ranges or have an exclusive licence. Maybe request permit if you plan to do hunting with your guns or plan to use them outside your property. IF someone intends to counter this post please address all the points rather than picking 1 then patting yourself on the back for your wicked zinger.[/QUOTE] Did you miss my post about how criminals make their own weapons? No amount of legislation or gun registration (which already exists btw) will prevent that, if the gun was made off the books its illegal anyway. And if you think this is isolated to the US: [url]http://gunsnfreedom.com/0405-australian-gangs-making-diy-machine-guns-despite-ban-on-assault-weapons/2568[/url] Also that graphs a bit out of date: [IMG]http://puu.sh/sxynw.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=shad0w440;51441180]Did you miss my post about how criminals make their own weapons? No amount of legislation or gun registration (which already exists btw) will prevent that, if the gun was made off the books its illegal anyway. And if you think this is isolated to the US: [url]http://gunsnfreedom.com/0405-australian-gangs-making-diy-machine-guns-despite-ban-on-assault-weapons/2568[/url][/QUOTE] Gun crime in UK is far lower per capita because we don't have such easy access to guns. Some crims use guns or make guns but its far rarer than in US.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51441126]If a madman/terrorist/irrational ass has a knife they can kill 0-4 people. If that same person has a gun they can kill much more. Its about reducing potential damage. [b]you'd have to live under a rock to not have heard about the mass stabbings in China [/b] The self defence thing (mentioning now coz it will no doubt pop up) is wrong since [url]http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222[/url] also [url]https://www.usafirearmtraining.com/politics/do-good-guys-stop-bad-guys-with-guns/[/url] [b]not bad considering 3% of the population has and actively uses a concealed carry permit [/b] And most of those were civilian security personnel on duty. Sure its a cool hobby and a fun thing to enjoy (I shoot shotguns in uk, I'd like to try actual rifle at some point) but the self defence argument is bs and the collateral to society is somewhat high. High guns per capita might work in switzerland but in the US for whatever reason people tend to use guns to kill other people far more than any other developed country. [b]there are literally more guns than people in America. everyone would be dead if guns were the problem. you want to blame someone? why dont you start with murderers instead of law abiding citizens [/b] [t]http://26t4l93f9dhe439yxm286lpv.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GunViolence2.png[/t] Comparable to pakistan in fact. Pakistan has Karachi and practically a civil war in the nothern regions. 2nd amendment arguments are BS since it was meant to be protection against tyrannical government and implied the people could be similarly armed so that would have people having predator drones, nukes and javelin missiles. [b] civilians are allowed most of that stuff, they're just too expensive for civs to buy. I'd bet there are at least a handful in civilian circulation, there are a couple hundred rpg7s and bazookas [/b] All that said guns are fun/cool/feel empowering and there are so many in the US that any kind of cut down would be pointless and impossible, guns are part of America's culture and perhaps even part of American people's identity (the self made, rugged individualistic man; overcoming all adversity using his pistol. Freedums). The NRA and gun lobby in general + all the people who like playing with guns + all the people who only feel safe while carrying a deadly weapon + militia types oppose any sensible discussion on the matter (gun owner database) In my mind a solution might be one of the following. National database of fire arms and fire arm owners. Track any changing in gun ownership. IF a gun is used in a crime then find who last owned it. Disallow guns in cities, people have to keep guns in shooting ranges or have an exclusive licence. Maybe request permit if you plan to do hunting with your guns or plan to use them outside your property. [b]this is already done in some countries and has proven to be ineffective[/b] IF someone intends to counter this post please address all the points rather than picking 1 then patting yourself on the back for your wicked zinger. [b]nice try but just because someone doesn't have anything to say about your whole wordy ass post doesnt mean the whole argument is invalid [/b] [/QUOTE] murder is already pretty illegal I don't know why you think someone willing to commit one crime isn't willing to commit another by not registering their guns.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51441241]Gun crime in UK is far lower per capita because we don't have such easy access to guns. Some crims use guns or make guns but its far rarer than in US.[/QUOTE] Feel free to compute it yourself [url]http://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/#[/url]

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51441241]Gun crime in UK is far lower per capita because we don't have such easy access to guns. Some crims use guns or make guns but its far rarer than in US.[/QUOTE] yeah but brits fuck each other up with things that aren't guns instead. I don't see why people think the method matters more than the outcome

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51441126]If a madman/terrorist/irrational ass has a knife they can kill 0-4 people. If that same person has a gun they can kill much more. Its about reducing potential damage. The self defence thing (mentioning now coz it will no doubt pop up) is wrong since [url]http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222[/url] also [url]https://www.usafirearmtraining.com/politics/do-good-guys-stop-bad-guys-with-guns/[/url] And most of those were civilian security personnel on duty.[/quote] self defense is more than just against mass shooters. self defense includes home defense, and defense in the instance of muggings and such. it is intellectually dishonest to mention self defense only in the instance of mass shootings. [quote]Sure its a cool hobby and a fun thing to enjoy (I shoot shotguns in uk, I'd like to try actual rifle at some point) but the self defence argument is bs and the collateral to society is somewhat high. High guns per capita might work in switzerland but in the US for whatever reason people tend to use guns to kill other people far more than any other developed country. [t]http://26t4l93f9dhe439yxm286lpv.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GunViolence2.png[/t] Comparable to pakistan in fact. Pakistan has Karachi and practically a civil war in the nothern regions.[/quote] this is heavily influenced by the difference in general crime levels in the US, namely due to gang crime which results from the terrible issues of wealth inequality and the very poor state of affairs in many of the poorest neighborhoods in the US. [quote]2nd amendment arguments are BS since it was meant to be protection against tyrannical government and implied the people could be similarly armed so that would have people having predator drones, nukes and javelin missiles.[/quote] this ignores several factors. if there were the instance of an armed rebellion, do you really think the government would nuke its own people? dealing with an insurrection, especially in a country that heavily relies on retaining corporations to survive, means that playing the PR game is critical. if you kill Ahmed and his family in an airstrike in Afghanistan to take out a handful of enemy combatants, many people don't care, it doesn't hit home. If you kill Jack, his wife and two daughters living in suburban Cleveland while taking out a few rebels, that shit would be all over the news and many more Americans would care. but that is beside the point. an armed rebellion would be the worst thing for the government, even if they "win" by killing all the rebels. the country would be incredibly destabilized and most corporations worth their salt would pull out of the country. the economy would collapse, and the former superpower could drop to third world country status fast. this is not something the government wants to have happen, they'd likely rather take a small hit and concede to the people than risk losing everything fighting a war against them. [quote]All that said guns are fun/cool/feel empowering and there are so many in the US that any kind of cut down would be pointless and impossible, guns are part of America's culture and perhaps even part of American people's identity (the self made, rugged individualistic man; overcoming all adversity using his pistol. Freedums). The NRA and gun lobby in general + all the people who like playing with guns + all the people who only feel safe while carrying a deadly weapon + militia types oppose any sensible discussion on the matter (gun owner database)[/quote] a gun registry sounds like a decent idea on paper but is generally a logistical nightmare in practice. canada tried it for just long guns, but found it so expensive for so little benefit that they dropped it. [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#205af0e75dbd[/url] attempting to do the same in the US, which has 300 million guns compared to canada's approximately 10.1 million, would be a fool's task and a money pit with, again, likely no real effect on crime, as the guns most used are stolen handguns with the serial numbers filed off. [quote]In my mind a solution might be one of the following. National database of fire arms and fire arm owners. Track any changing in gun ownership. IF a gun is used in a crime then find who last owned it. Disallow guns in cities, people have to keep guns in shooting ranges or have an exclusive licence. Maybe request permit if you plan to do hunting with your guns or plan to use them outside your property.[/quote] neither of these would really work to deter crime, the second of which would only take away the rights of and inconvenience law abiding citizens while criminals continue to do the same as they have. [quote]IF someone intends to counter this post please address all the points rather than picking 1 then patting yourself on the back for your wicked zinger.[/QUOTE] done [editline]28th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;51441052]I think the way Canada handles it is just fine. You want your first gun? Take a short course on gun safety. If you truly want it, why should this be a problem?[/QUOTE] courses should be freely available if this were the case and the course should be bypassable, meaning if you can pass a test or something you shouldn't be required to take a course going over things you were already taught or learnt on your own, if this were the case imo, with the prevalence of guns in america gun safety should be course in public schools similar to sex education (the concept thereof, not necessarily how it is practiced)

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51441310] imo, with the prevalence of guns in america gun safety should be course in public schools similar to sex education (the concept thereof, not necessarily how it is practiced)[/QUOTE] My public school had mandatory archery training for some reason.

[QUOTE=shad0w440;51441370]My public school had mandatory archery training for some reason.[/QUOTE] that is bizarre, do you live in medieval times?

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51441395]that is bizarre, do you live in medieval times?[/QUOTE] Sometimes I wonder...

1. I think this thread was a dangerous idea. 2. I think that more guns leads to less crime. [t]http://i.imgur.com/tNGcH01.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/XCLiXec.png[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/6Jkg8M2.png[/t]

I think a lot of the arguments come from Europeans who don't understand the gun culture and the mindset of many Americans. There are places in the US where it takes emergency services a long time to arrive and in a situation where you are being robbed/attacked, you can't stop and sit around for an hour.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51441554]There are places in the US where it takes emergency services a long time to arrive and in a situation where you are being robbed/attacked, you can't stop and sit around for an hour.[/QUOTE] This, this, this. Avg response time for most areas is between 5-30 minutes. By that time the crime is over, the police do not stop crime, they fill out reports.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51441554]I think a lot of the arguments come from Europeans who don't understand the gun culture and the mindset of many Americans. There are places in the US where it takes emergency services a long time to arrive and in a situation where you are being robbed/attacked, you can't stop and sit around for an hour.[/QUOTE] It's not instant for Europeans either though. it'll still be like 5-20 minutes for police to get there.

[QUOTE=Zombinie;51441561]This, this, this. Avg response time for most areas is between 5-30 minutes. By that time the crime is over, the police do not stop crime, they fill out reports.[/QUOTE] Same response time as here. Svinnik was right about [quote=svin]I think a lot of the arguments come from Europeans who don't understand the [b]gun culture and the mindset of many Americans[/b]. There are places in the US where it takes emergency services a long time to arrive and in a situation where you are being robbed/attacked, you can't stop and sit around for an hour.[/quote] It's a culture and identity thing more than anything. Like alcohol, makes more sense to get rid of it but its our culture so we keep it.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51441564]It's not instant for Europeans either though. it'll still be like 5-20 minutes for police to get there.[/QUOTE] 5-20 minutes still gives the police a chance to be there. An hour in, it's for sure over.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51441126]If a madman/terrorist/irrational ass has a knife they can kill 0-4 people. If that same person has a gun they can kill much more. Its about reducing potential damage. The self defence thing (mentioning now coz it will no doubt pop up) is wrong since [url]http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222[/url] also [url]https://www.usafirearmtraining.com/politics/do-good-guys-stop-bad-guys-with-guns/[/url] And most of those were civilian security personnel on duty.[/QUOTE] Not to pick on you in particular because you're far from the first person to make this argument, but it's an extraordinarily dishonest argument to look at the low numbers of mass shootings stopped by armed civilians and conclude that armed civilians are irrelevant. For one thing, there are many examples of would-be mass shooters being stopped by armed civilians [i]before[/i] they reach the criteria to become mass shootings. You don't hear about portable fire extinguishers stopping three-alarm house fires, but to conclude from that fact that fire extinguishers don't help prevent fires would be ridiculous. When an armed civilian is involved the attack is often resolved long before reaching newsworthy status. Second, it's no secret that mass shootings disproportionately target locations where concealed carry and armed security are not present or not able to quickly react. Schools and colleges have minimal security, military bases only have armed MPs, the Aurora theater shooter just so happened to choose the only theater on the block that banned concealed carry. When mass shooters target places where civilians are prohibited from being armed, it's not surprising that very few of them are stopped by civilians. The comparative lack of mass shootings on campuses that openly allow concealed carry seems to support this. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51441126]2nd amendment arguments are BS since it was meant to be protection against tyrannical government and implied the people could be similarly armed so that would have people having predator drones, nukes and javelin missiles.[/QUOTE] That's utter nonsense. The militia didn't have warships or field artillery, so you could make the same argument the day the Constitution was written. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to arm the populace to the same level as the military, it's to provide force of arms to shift the balance of power in their favor, and ensure that every American can provide for the common defense against enemies both foreign and domestic. Sure, in a straight-up fight a bunch of rag-tag militiamen are going to lose to Abrams and Predators. So what? An Abrams can't go door-to-door, and a Predator can't subdue a public protest. An armed populace turns a brutal, but swift police operation into a confrontation and standoff, with severe political consequences for the government that authorizes live fire against its own citizens. Just look at the difference between the Bundy jerkoffs and the North Dakota pipeline protests. The Bundy militants controlled a federal facility for months by being too much of a threat for the FBI to simply storm the place, while the pipeline protestors haven't stopped the pipeline from being built. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51441126]National database of fire arms and fire arm owners. Track any changing in gun ownership. IF a gun is used in a crime then find who last owned it.[/QUOTE] I gather you haven't done much research into the utility of firearm databases- for example, Canada disbanded theirs a few years ago after it proved utterly useless at helping prosecute crimes. Unless a criminal leaves their gun at the scene, a database gives you nothing, and under the current system if you do recover a gun you can use the NICS records to find the last official transfer and work forward from there. Gun owners oppose registries not because they're an undue burden, but because they offer no benefit to the criminal justice system and historically have been used as shopping lists for government confiscation. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51441126]Disallow guns in cities, people have to keep guns in shooting ranges or have an exclusive licence. [/QUOTE] Self-defense is one of the main motivators for firearm ownership, and self-defense is disproportionally relevant in major cities. You won't see that suggestion getting much traction among the American public, especially in areas where police response times average 30 minutes or more, and police have no legal obligation to help a victim if doing so could put them in danger.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51441697]5-20 minutes still gives the police a chance to be there. An hour in, it's for sure over.[/QUOTE] in some place, you're lucky if they're there that day or dont just ignore your call entirely. america is too big a place with violent crime too concentrated to respond to every little call in a timely manner

Continuing the discussion regarding defensive gun use: This is an excerpt from the National Academies Press. ([url]https://www.nap.edu/download/18319[/url]) [B]Defensive Use of Guns[/B] Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). [B]Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals[/B], with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use. A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gunwielding crime victim. [B]Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.[/B] (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). And this is a graph showing similar results, but from a different time range: [t]http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/GUNS-AND-CRIME-PREVENTION-Injury-Rates-by-Self-Protection-Method.png[/t]

Or, for example, during the L.A. riots, or the aftermath of hurricane katrina. Good luck getting the cops to come at all when local infrastructure is totally fucked and groups of armed hooligans come looking for houses to rob.

[QUOTE=Birdman101;51442012]Or, for example, during the L.A. riots, Good luck getting the cops to come at all when local infrastructure is totally fucked and groups of armed hooligans come looking for houses to rob.[/QUOTE] God bless Roof Koreans: [t]http://i.imgur.com/jYLBryf.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=catbarf;51441784]Not to pick on you in particular because you're far from the first person to make this argument, but it's an extraordinarily dishonest argument to look at the low numbers of mass shootings stopped by armed civilians and conclude that armed civilians are irrelevant. For one thing, there are many examples of would-be mass shooters being stopped by armed civilians [i]before[/i] they reach the criteria to become mass shootings. You don't hear about portable fire extinguishers stopping three-alarm house fires, but to conclude from that fact that fire extinguishers don't help prevent fires would be ridiculous. When an armed civilian is involved the attack is often resolved long before reaching newsworthy status. [/quote] So you're saying theres no evidence for guns stopping mass shootings because a mass shooting isn't classified as a mass shooting because the good guy with the gun stopped it getting that far? I guess the burden of proof would be on you to prove that since you're making the claim that good guys with guns actually work. Is this argument based on them challenging and stopping the would be mass shooter or is this based on there mere presence of a gun acting as a deterrent? [quote] Second, it's no secret that mass shootings disproportionately target locations where concealed carry and armed security are not present or not able to quickly react. Schools and colleges have minimal security, military bases only have armed MPs, the Aurora theater shooter just so happened to choose the only theater on the block that banned concealed carry. When mass shooters target places where civilians are prohibited from being armed, it's not surprising that very few of them are stopped by civilians. The comparative lack of mass shootings on campuses that openly allow concealed carry seems to support this. [/quote] Correlation != causation People target those places because they're busy and busy places tend to be places where you're not allowed to CC. It's an extraordinarily dishonest argument to use that as evidence that CC stops people doing shootings. [quote] That's utter nonsense. The militia didn't have warships or field artillery, so you could make the same argument the day the Constitution was written. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to arm the populace to the same level as the military, it's to provide force of arms to shift the balance of power in their favor, and ensure that every American can provide for the common defense against enemies both foreign and domestic.[/quote] Well the US army is easily strong enough to see off foreign enemies so we can discount that. Domestic enemies are either criminals, bears or a tyrannical government. Bears only live in certain areas and I say it is justified to carry some kind of defensive weapon in those areas. Criminals I've yet to see much evidence for guns actually helping there, seems it just makes access to guns easier for criminals meaning there are more gun deaths and you get an arms race sort of scenario where everyone needs to be armed because all the criminals are (in UK criminals tend not to be armed with guns). So that leave us with tyrannical gov. [quote] Sure, in a straight-up fight a bunch of rag-tag militiamen are going to lose to Abrams and Predators. So what? An Abrams can't go door-to-door, and a Predator can't subdue a public protest. An armed populace turns a brutal, but swift police operation into a confrontation and standoff, with severe political consequences for the government that authorizes live fire against its own citizens.[/quote] If the populace have guns then the police have to gear up and use more force. The police have to use vests and rifles and armoured vehicles. Police will shoot first and ask questions later because the person is likely to be armed. So again its an arms race. The police easily over power the populace, because now they have bullet/mine proof cars, apcs, body armour and assault rifles, protests can be quelled with gas and surrounded by armoured vehicles and guys in camo with assault rifles, the only reason such force isn't used is because the government is not a tyrannical government. Look at the arab spring government's chose to use that force against populace's who were armed, the only reason some of those protests were "successful" (ie not shut down instantly) is because the army picked the side of the protesters. Guns as protection against tyrannical government only works because the government isn't tyrannical and having guns serves to justify the police using more deadly force and being more armed [quote]Just look at the difference between the Bundy jerkoffs and the North Dakota pipeline protests. The Bundy militants controlled a federal facility for months by being too much of a threat for the FBI to simply storm the place, while the pipeline protestors haven't stopped the pipeline from being built.[/quote] Both are a consequence of armed populace and armed police arms race. Armed populace scared the police from going in because they would have to kill people which looks bad (something a tyrannical gov wouldn't care about) in the bundy case and armed police totally crushed a relatively peaceful protest. Seems like a worst case scenario tbh in a situation where armed police are necessary nothing was done, in a situation where armed police shouldn't have been necessary, excessive force was used escalating the situation. [quote] I gather you haven't done much research into the utility of firearm databases- for example, Canada disbanded theirs a few years ago after it proved utterly useless at helping prosecute crimes. Unless a criminal leaves their gun at the scene, a database gives you nothing, and under the current system if you do recover a gun you can use the NICS records to find the last official transfer and work forward from there. Gun owners oppose registries not because they're an undue burden, but because they offer no benefit to the criminal justice system and historically have been used as shopping lists for government confiscation.[/quote] Seems pretty legit point you make there regarding the database, not sure about the shopping list thing, if a gov is going to confiscate firearms because ownership is illegal then surely people should hand in their guns, to not do so would make them criminals, so the "dont have db because gov might stop criminals" doesn't seem right, if you want to oppose the gov taking your guns do so democratically don't pick and choose which laws apply to you. [quote] Self-defense is one of the main motivators for firearm ownership, and self-defense is disproportionally relevant in major cities. You won't see that suggestion getting much traction among the American public, especially in areas where police response times average 30 minutes or more, and police have no legal obligation to help a victim if doing so could put them in danger.[/QUOTE] This is contradictory. You say guns for self defence are especially needed in cities but then go on to say guns are especially needed in areas where response time is over 30 mins (ie not cities where police are generally close). In the UK we don't need guns for self defence in cities, the only reason you need guns for self defence in cities is because everyone, including criminals and nutters, has easy access to guns. Sorry to keep mentioning the UK, I'm certainly [b]not[/b] saying we're better regarding this but you guys have a problem with gun violence (compared to other developed countries) and I'm a bit of a dick so I feel the compulsion to share my thoughts, which are based off of experience which is mainly from living in the UK and holidaying to places with similar gun laws to UK. [editline]29th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51441310]self defense is more than just against mass shooters. self defense includes home defense, and defense in the instance of muggings and such. it is intellectually dishonest to mention self defense only in the instance of mass shootings.[/quote] Only necessary because all the criminals have guns because guns are so easy to get. [quote] this is heavily influenced by the difference in general crime levels in the US, namely due to gang crime which results from the terrible issues of wealth inequality and the very poor state of affairs in many of the poorest neighborhoods in the US.[/quote] So you can either solve issues with poverty and crime or mitigate the damage done by controlling gun ownership. The US isn't doing anything to solve poverty so controlling guns seems to be sensible. A criminal with a gun is going to do far more damage than a criminal with a knife. [quote] this ignores several factors. if there were the instance of an armed rebellion, do you really think the government would nuke its own people?[/quote] You got a point here about nukes but the police use armoured vehicles so my point still stands. [quote] dealing with an insurrection, especially in a country that heavily relies on retaining corporations to survive, means that playing the PR game is critical. if you kill Ahmed and his family in an airstrike in Afghanistan to take out a handful of enemy combatants, many people don't care, it doesn't hit home. If you kill Jack, his wife and two daughters living in suburban Cleveland while taking out a few rebels, that shit would be all over the news and many more Americans would care. [/quote] The government doesn't do this because they are not tyrannical, if the government didn't care about PR then guns wouldn't save you, army defection would be you're only hope. [quote] but that is beside the point. an armed rebellion would be the worst thing for the government, even if they "win" by killing all the rebels. the country would be incredibly destabilized and most corporations worth their salt would pull out of the country. the economy would collapse, and the former superpower could drop to third world country status fast. this is not something the government wants to have happen, they'd likely rather take a small hit and concede to the people than risk losing everything fighting a war against them.[/quote] Other countries seem to be stable without every man and his dog having a gun. Maybe this is disingenuous though since the cat is already out of the bag and any effort to control gun ownership would just end up with black market stuff. [quote] a gun registry sounds like a decent idea on paper but is generally a logistical nightmare in practice. canada tried it for just long guns, but found it so expensive for so little benefit that they dropped it. [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#205af0e75dbd[/url] attempting to do the same in the US, which has 300 million guns compared to canada's approximately 10.1 million, would be a fool's task and a money pit with, again, likely no real effect on crime, as the guns most used are stolen handguns with the serial numbers filed off. neither of these would really work to deter crime, the second of which would only take away the rights of and inconvenience law abiding citizens while criminals continue to do the same as they have. [/quote] Yup you're right about this, my suggestions were invalid. Like I said though already saturated with guns so maybe its a problem without a solution. [quote] done [/quote] Thanks for taking your time with this.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51444087]So you're saying theres no evidence for guns stopping mass shootings because a mass shooting isn't classified as a mass shooting because the good guy with the gun stopped it getting that far? I guess the burden of proof would be on you to prove that since you're making the claim that good guys with guns actually work. Is this argument based on them challenging and stopping the would be mass shooter or is this based on there mere presence of a gun acting as a deterrent? [/QUOTE] I can't provide statistical evidence for events that didn't happen, only examples of events where it occurred, and even that involves some speculation as to the motives of the shooter. At the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_Town_Center_shooting"]Clackamas Town Center shooting[/URL], a concealed carrier confronted the shooter and forced him to retreat before he took his own life. In Chicago last year, an Uber driver [URL="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-uber-driver-shoots-gunman-met-0420-20150419-story.html"]stopped a would-be mass shooter[/URL]. Of course, it didn't even make national news. I'll admit that these are basically speculative and anecdotal because, again, it's hard to draw useful conclusions about things that didn't happen, but they're far from a once-in-a-blue-moon occurrence. As for the presence of a gun acting as a deterrent, see below. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51444087]Correlation != causation People target those places because they're busy and busy places tend to be places where you're not allowed to CC. It's an extraordinarily dishonest argument to use that as evidence that CC stops people doing shootings.[/QUOTE] 'People target those places because they're busy' falls apart when you consider that the Aurora shooter chose the [I]only[/I] theater in a several-block radius that bans CC, and the [I]overwhelming[/I] majority of school shootings have occurred on campuses that ban firearms and don't have permanent security. There are plenty of colleges, theaters, malls, and other businesses in the US that allow concealed carry, and there are plenty of high schools with permanent police security, so it would be a remarkable coincidence that they are almost never targeted by mass shooters just by happenstance. Off the top of my head, the only recent example was the Umpqua community college. Beyond that, despite having comparable population density to gun-free counterparts, they remain shooting-free. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51444087]If the populace have guns then the police have to gear up and use more force. The police have to use vests and rifles and armoured vehicles. Police will shoot first and ask questions later because the person is likely to be armed. So again its an arms race. The police easily over power the populace, because now they have bullet/mine proof cars, apcs, body armour and assault rifles, protests can be quelled with gas and surrounded by armoured vehicles and guys in camo with assault rifles, the only reason such force isn't used is because the government is not a tyrannical government. Look at the arab spring government's chose to use that force against populace's who were armed, the only reason some of those protests were "successful" (ie not shut down instantly) is because the army picked the side of the protesters.[/QUOTE] Yep, that's exactly the point. Police breaking up a protest with riot batons doesn't get international attention. Police opening fire on an armed protest and a gunfight breaking out in the streets sure does. I'm not sure why you think bringing up Arab Spring helps your argument, considering the armed insurrection underpinning both the Egyptian and Libyan revolutions started with government forces using lethal force on civilians, both goading the populace into action and making their servicemen have second thoughts about firing on their own people. The military is much more likely to rebel when they're being directed to kill their fellow countrymen than when they're sitting in a depot while the police detain dissidents. Keep in mind that the mental shorthand of 'tyrannical government' doesn't necessarily mean a government with absolute power, totally immune to political pressure, just one with enough power to start to disregard the rights protected under the Constitution. And even in the case of a totally tyrannical government, the loyalty of the military and international support are not guaranteed. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51444087]Seems pretty legit point you make there regarding the database, not sure about the shopping list thing, if a gov is going to confiscate firearms because ownership is illegal then surely people should hand in their guns, to not do so would make them criminals, so the "dont have db because gov might stop criminals" doesn't seem right, if you want to oppose the gov taking your guns do so democratically don't pick and choose which laws apply to you.[/QUOTE] This somewhat goes hand-in-hand with the 'tyrannical government' issue. Forcible disarmament is historically often a prelude to abuses of power, and retaining ownership of banned guns is considered an act of civil disobedience. Again, this ties in with the balance of power- not giving the government that shopping list makes mass confiscation essentially a non-starter. Is it a more paranoid or unreasonable fear, sure, especially since as I said the NICS database tracks transfers. But when there are no redeeming qualities to a registry, any legitimate criticism, no matter how speculative or outlandish, is enough justification to oppose registries. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51444087]This is contradictory. You say guns for self defence are especially needed in cities but then go on to say guns are especially needed in areas where response time is over 30 mins (ie not cities where police are generally close). [/QUOTE] Actually, no, cities are often where police response time is over 30 mins, thanks to booming populations and underfunded police. As of one year ago, in fact, police response times in New Orleans (a major city) averaged [URL="http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/10/new_orleans_police_response_ti.html"]over an hour[/URL]. That's not even the worst in the country. And it doesn't even take something like Katrina or the LA Riots to completely shut down police activity. During the Ferguson protests, which were localized and relatively civil, police were unavailable to respond to calls and business owners were on their own to protect their livelihoods. Furthermore, police officers in the US have [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia"]no obligation to protect the populace[/URL]. The legal system explicitly states that the purpose of police is to arrest criminals, and if citizens want to avoid being victimized it's up to them. When police officers show up too late, or refuse to intervene in a home invasion out of fear for the officers' safety, why would anyone rely on them for protection? [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51444087]In the UK we don't need guns for self defence in cities, the only reason you need guns for self defence in cities is because everyone, including criminals and nutters, has easy access to guns.[/QUOTE] Nah. I mean sure, the fact that criminals are armed does imply the use of firearms as a tool for effective self-defense, although you'll find plenty of people with stun guns and pepper spray. But I know people who have been sexually assaulted, beaten with tire irons, stabbed by meth-heads breaking into their houses, and targeted for queer-bashing, and none of these incidents involved guns. Contrary to popular belief, most petty criminals in the US are not armed, both due to the difficulty of acquiring a real firearm and the consequences for being caught with one. Realistically-painted toy guns and knives are common compliance tools for muggers, burglars are typically unarmed, and the stats for defensive gun uses show that almost all criminals flee when confronted with lethal force. Even if criminals didn't have guns at all, we'd have reason for honest citizens to be armed, because it gives them an advantage over their attacker(s), especially when there's a disparity in numbers or physical strength. The idea that civilian use of guns in self-defense is the product of an arms race between law-abiding citizens and criminals is basically a myth. One of my friends from college works in a sketchy part of her city. She doesn't carry a handgun because criminals on her route might have guns, she carries a handgun because she's afraid of being raped. The fears that drive people to pursue effective means of self-defense have much less to do with what criminals are carrying than the presence of criminals in the first place. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51444087]Sorry to keep mentioning the UK, I'm certainly [B]not[/B] saying we're better regarding this but you guys have a problem with gun violence (compared to other developed countries) and I'm a bit of a dick so I feel the compulsion to share my thoughts, which are based off of experience which is mainly from living in the UK and holidaying to places with similar gun laws to UK.[/QUOTE] No worries. Our countries are very different in many ways and these kinds of direct comparisons help reveal where our assumptions may be erroneous- for example, differences in police response times as above.

what're your guy's thoughts on a govt backed 100% free "Looky here, I'm not an idiot with a gun" license that grants you access to all types of guns? [editline]me me[/editline] Shall-issue. Besides, I was talking more on the more gun control side of countries. (eg canada)

[QUOTE=MrDwarf11;51445114]what're your guy's thoughts on a govt backed 100% free "Looky here, I'm not an idiot with a gun" license that grants you access to all types of guns?[/QUOTE] Then it's no longer a right in the USA. At the state level, they have been successful in requiring a license to carry a handgun in most states. Some states took that further and required an additional license or card for "nonsporting" firearms like Illinois and California. Some of these states also are not required by law to issue said license. So you end up with an effective ban of some sort because the lawenforcement either believes that you never need a gun or they've been instructed to never give one out. For the masses, unless you are well connected to a police chief or someone in political power, you are not getting said license. We don't like licenses due to the possible abuse by those who wish to keep the population disarmed. This doesn't even touch onto the mishmash of legal issues when traveling from state to state.