America doesn’t have more crime than other rich countries. It just has more guns.
167 replies, posted
That's great. Who do you think is hunting with an assault rifle? How many assault rifles do you figure are used in crimes? Answer the question.
I'm about to go to bed so I'm going to say that assault rifle ownership in the US is incredibly low and nobody who can afford one commits crimes with them. What you think is an assault rifle is a regular rifle dressed up to look like a military weapon. That's all. It's wearing makeup.
And those are not even used in crimes, either.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;48576693]The Assault Weapons Ban, which is heralded as probably the worst legislation on firearms in the last 50 years.
I'm sure the majority of gun owners who had their guns confiscated were perfectly OK with that. You can't punish a silent majority because of a very vocal minority.[/QUOTE]
Nobody had their guns confiscated. The AWB banned the sale and manufacture of "assault weapons", which is a term for guns that had cosmetic features such as telescoping(adjustable) stocks, pistol grips, bayonet mounts, flash suppressors and threaded barrels.
To date, not a single piece of legislation has lead to the involuntary confiscation of any guns. Even in 1986 when new machine guns were banned from being sold and manufactured, existing ones were perfectly fine(which is why they're like unicorns now).
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48579491]That's great. Who do you think is hunting with an assault rifle? How many assault rifles do you figure are used in crimes? Answer the question.
I'm about to go to bed so I'm going to say that assault rifle ownership in the US is incredibly low and nobody who can afford one commits crimes with them. What you think is an assault rifle is a regular rifle dressed up to look like a military weapon. That's all. It's wearing makeup.
And those are not even used in crimes, either.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand. I didn't say anyone was hunting with an assault rifle. Hence why people don't need them.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;48579486]I'm just saying that there is no need to own an assault rifle unless you live in a war zone.[/QUOTE]
People that actually have a real, legal assault rifle wouldn't dare take it hunting, as most are worth more than a brand new car.
You do see big events like the Big Sandy Machine Gun Shoot, which has people bring out things ranging from MP5s and M16s to Browning M2 .50 cals and Miniguns, for the sole purpose of dumping as much lead as quickly as possible upon a hill that's covered in derelict cars filled with explosives.
I actually suggest you check some videos on this event, as it's action movie levels of awesome, and at night, they break out the tracers, creating a pretty cool light show for everyone.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48578180]Chainsaws help chainsaw murders, axes help axe murders, knives help knife murders. What do these three types of violent homicide have in common? The weapon didn't cause them to commit it. Confiscating lawfully owned and used property from over 100,000,000 Americans because it's a type of item used by a different type of person to commit a crime is not the correct response to the problem.
There is no evidence that banning firearms reduces the amount of homicides. The homicide rate in Australia was decreasing prior to the ban and continued to decrease at the same rate. Homicide continues in the UK. There are still firearm homicides there, too, just not committed with guns that were caught by the ban. Guns are [B]not[/B] the [B]reason[/B] that homicides are committed. Attack the [B]reason[/B], do not focus on the tool used to commit the crime.[/QUOTE]
The reasons will always be there: humans are selfish, petty, impulsive creatures who revel in revenge. You can solve some of that by reducing poverty and increasing policing of crime-ridden areas, improving mental health outreach, care and acceptance, and [B]restricting their access to weapons designed specifically to kill people[/B].
[editline]31st August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sonador;48579227]In the meantime, I carry a firearm to protect myself at work, and I'm limited to ten round magazines because I'm a civilian. I work in some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in my city trying to keep the peace, and [I]my right to defend my own life has been hogtied and hobbled by people who have zero understanding of guns and think they're scaaaaary and baaaaaad and you should just ban guns outright![/I] Just remember that when you inspire the creation and passing of these kind of vapidly brainless legislation, you legitimately endanger people like me.[/QUOTE]
I don't live in the US, but if I did, I could easily turn this argument around by saying that your insistence on having firearms freely available to any and every one is endangering people like me who do not wish to carry around firearms.
[editline]31st August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Govna;48578610]Yes actually, studies have shown that because guns are a quick and easy method of suicide, they also correlate with higher rates of not only attempted suicide but rates of successful suicides too; remove them and force people to consider more difficult and personal and time-consuming methods that require them to rethink their decisions, you will decrease the rates of both attempted suicide and successful suicide. It's easier and faster to shoot and kill yourself with a gun than it is to slowly strangle yourself or slit your veins open and bleed to death. Most people who attempt suicide also don't go on to kill themselves later either (fun psychology fact for you; the statistic is nine in ten).
There's been at least twelve studies by proper institutions that've covered this territory before, [URL="http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/"]including Harvard's School of Public Health[/URL]. The only "dense motherfucker" here is you, and the others out there like you who have this retarded defeatist (and fatalistic) attitude of "if a person wants to kill themselves/somebody else badly enough, they will and it can't be prevented by gun control". That's horseshit, and everyone knows it; decreasing access to guns would solve a ton of problems here, because easier access to guns means they're used more often, and it also means they're used more successfully to kill (guns are great at their job, hence why we rely on them as much as we do as our main choice of weaponry compared to, say, swords, machetes, battle axes, hammers, knives, clubs, etc.).[/QUOTE]
To further this point with a personal anecdote: if firearms had been freely available in my country, I'm certain that I would be short a close friend and a sister by now. Instead they survived their suicide attempts and got the appropriate treatment and are now very happy people.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48579577]The reasons will always be there: humans are selfish, petty, impulsive creatures who revel in revenge. You can solve some of that by reducing poverty and increasing policing of crime-ridden areas, improving mental health outreach, care and acceptance, and [B]restricting their access to weapons designed specifically to kill people[/B].
[editline]31st August 2015[/editline]
I don't live in the US, but if I did, I could easily turn this argument around by saying that your insistence on having firearms freely available to any and every one is endangering people like me who do not wish to carry around firearms.[/QUOTE]
The thing is, I don't advocate giving guns to anyone and everyone. I advocate that people with clean criminal history and a solid mental health backgrounds should have the ability to purchase firearms. I maintain adamantly that people with a provable likelihood to misuse them don't get them, and those that do misuse them get removed from society and punished heavily.
[QUOTE=download;48574608]Eh, there is some evidence that a very small number of people will talk themselves out of it they take time to prepare a suicide such as finding some rope or driving to a bridge.
It's been a while since I looked a the data but I think it was a very small number. Also not really relevant to the overall gun debate. It's more in the "treating depression" area.[/QUOTE]
That's true some people won't commit suicide if they can't get a gun because if they shoot themselves in the temple it's usually an instant death rather than hanging themselves or jumping off a bridge.
Here's an infograph i found on firearm mortality within 2013.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/gFAKtao.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;48579486]I'm just saying that there is no need to own an assault rifle unless you live in a war zone.[/QUOTE]
You do know that gun deaths from legally owned select-fire weapons or machineguns are insanely rare? Two gun deaths from legally owned automatic weapons since 1934.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;48579431]I don't understand why the US doesn't just introduce gun licenses.[/QUOTE]
Because we don't trust them with a list of people who own guns, because of what your own government did with such a list.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;48579431]I don't understand why the US doesn't just introduce gun licenses. You need a license to drive a car I don't see why you shouldn't have them for firearms. It's common sense honestly. Also, I mean I can understand the argument of using them for protection and hunting, but honestly people don't need assault rifles for protection or hunting deer.
The thing is in America people are always saying that you can't change the second amendment like it is some sacred thing, even though you can change it as an amendment is literally a change or modification to legislation, as well as the it being 200 years old and was created for an entirely different world than exists today.
I honestly feel this entire thing is similar to Japan killing tonnes of whales and dolphins every year and claiming it is for scientific research or tradition.
While it may not be a gun problem, allowing any random hick off the street to own a firearm isn't helping.
Its the same with lawsuits, pretty much anyone can sue for any reason in America. In Australia if you tried to sue for half of the lawsuits I hear about in America you would get laughed at told to piss off by the court.[/QUOTE]
Yeah gun licences wouldn't fly because of the second amendment. In the thread about the two journalists dying I presented a market-based solution which would incentivise gun dealers to practice discretion with untrustworthy customers, however I was repeatedly told I was an idiot and to go away. I guess some people are just fine with the status quo.
[QUOTE=zerglingv2;48578778]My home state of Maryland had an AWB introduced in 2013, and in order to buy handguns you have to take a course. Since the introduction of these laws, Baltimore has had 222 murders in 2015 alone, and from July 13 to Aug 25 BPD Officers have seized 314 guns, the same time last year 218 guns were seized.
How about instead of banning guns, because it is obvious that shit isn't working, we actually try to combat shit that actually causes crime, like poverty and lack of education.[/QUOTE]
Not banning guns isn't working either. A number of cities around the country have seen increases in murders and violent crime here in recent years; Baltimore and Maryland in general with its AWB is nothing special. Here in my state of Missouri, which does not have any gun bans and actually has some pretty lax gun laws in general, St. Louis and Kansas City have both seen surges in murders and violent crime.
These surges have been caused by civil unrest. In Baltimore, it started with the riots over Freddy Grey back in April (there were 45 murders according to the news there in July); in St. Louis, it's been almost as bad (100+ murdered since the beginning of 2015) since the riots over Michael Brown in August 2014. Rioting populations of people clustered together in urban environments act more fatally violent towards each other. This is what happens in times like these.
All this talk about the failings of our mental health care system, of poverty and a lack of education (while these are issues that need to be addressed), is only talked about in the first place because of a reluctance to admit that in addition to these problems, we also have an unhealthy and deep cultural erection for firearms. It's got as much to do with poverty and a lack of education and poor-quality mental health treatment as it's got to do with an overabundance of weapons to the point of absurdity and in particular weapons that are extraordinarily efficient at what they do to the point where there's an overwillingness for people to use them.
It's as much about fighting poverty and uneducated people, as well as reforming our mental health care system, as it's about controlling the distribution and ownership of firearms, empowering law enforcement with the tools to gain control (something the NRA has fought tooth and nail against using their lobbying power; they work to legally nerf the ATF, and then they turn around and complain to the public about what an incompetent bureau they are) and seeking to socially reengineer our culture towards a more European status.
Or not.
[editline]31st August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48579832]Yeah gun licences wouldn't fly because of the second amendment. In the thread about the two journalists dying I presented a market-based solution which would incentivise gun dealers to practice discretion with untrustworthy customers, however I was repeatedly told I was an idiot and to go away. I guess some people are just fine with the status quo.[/QUOTE]
You're lucky to be an Australian, as far as this issue goes at least.
I'm fine with the status quo honestly. Gun violence has never been a problem for my small, rapidly-aging family before (save for a cousin who committed suicide a few years ago), and it's not likely to be for them at this rate either. So as far as these other people go, I really don't care what happens to them. I don't care if they become victims or not, I don't care if their families become victims or not. Their problems do not affect me or my family, and that's how simple it is. I'd prefer it to not affect innocent people at all, but hey, this is real life, and we often can't have nice things. If we consciously decide to do nothing, we willingly invite whatever happens onto ourselves; I'm fine with that.
I'm just disappointed that this is still an issue in the 21st century for the world's reigning superpower that's supposedly the best country in existence. We're fucked up on a lot of levels, that's nothing new, but wow does it get depressing when change and reform takes this long over such a simple issue most others have already figured out.
[QUOTE=Govna;48579850]It's as much about fighting poverty and uneducated people, as well as reforming our mental health care system, as it's about controlling the distribution and ownership of firearms, empowering law enforcement with the tools to gain control (something the NRA has fought tooth and nail against using their lobbying power; they work to legally nerf the ATF, and then they turn around and complain to the public about what an incompetent bureau they are) and seeking to [b]socially reengineer our culture towards a more European status[/b].[/QUOTE]
This is exactly the point that many Americans, and indeed many people in general refuse to accept: that some cultures are superior to others in certain ways. People cling onto the idea that because something is a part of their culture, it is sacrosanct and cannot be touched. Gun culture in the US is the prime example of this amongst first-world countries.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48579904]This is exactly the point that many Americans, and indeed many people in general refuse to accept: that some cultures are superior to others in certain ways. People cling onto the idea that because something is a part of their culture, it is sacrosanct and cannot be touched. Gun culture in the US is the prime example of this amongst first-world countries.[/QUOTE]
I'd argue that gun culture's advantages are that people who enjoy using and collecting guns can actually do those things, which they could not do in anywhere else, at least not to the extent they can here.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48579948]I'd argue that gun culture's advantages are that people who enjoy using and collecting guns can actually do those things, which they could not do in anywhere else, at least not to the extent they can here.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah of course-- the advantage of fun is much more important than making sacrifices and putting effort into fighting the real life disadvantages (murder and suicide, violent crime in general, political corruption and questionable agendas by lobbying groups, rampant commercialism, poverty, etc.) that seriously affect our people and our country as a whole, like, you know, mature and intelligent adults are supposed to do.
(Who am I kidding, there [i]are[/i] a ton of Americans whose priorities are this out of order and fucking ridiculous.)
To fix suicide, improve your mental health care. US is doing quite badly in that department. To reduce murder, improve your socioeconomic situation. Guns are not at fault here. Not even close. It's like thinking banning violent videogames will fix school shootings.
[QUOTE=Govna;48580061]Oh yeah of course-- the advantage of fun is much more important than making sacrifices and putting effort into fighting the real life disadvantages (murder and suicide, violent crime in general, [B]political corruption and questionable agendas by lobbying groups, rampant commercialism, poverty, etc[/B].) that seriously affect our people and our country as a whole, like, you know, mature and intelligent adults are supposed to do.[/QUOTE]
The bolded aren't even related to guns. And I like to think we can solve our problems without banning guns because a very small number of people can't be trusted with them.
banning guns is overkill
just set up a federal licensing system - treat it like a vehicle. you need hours and hours of safety classes to be eligible to get a license. then you take a test. throw in some mental health tests that discount you for sociopathy or other illnesses. then you get a license. then you go buy a gun.
what if you want to sell it? different from vehicles. require the resale of guns to go through a third-party that has the ability to verify it. go to a gun store, pay a small fee, they'll run both your licenses, bam, sold your gun.
if you sell your gun illegally they'll have it registered to your name and you could be prosecuted for illegally selling a weapon to an unlicensed individual. a hefty fine and you're done. if you report it stolen, you're good.
we need revamped gun laws that control sales and help manage security. you shouldn't be able to own a gun if you don't know basic trigger safety and maintenance skills. in my state i can walk into walmart and buy a gun and walk right out - that's absurd.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48580178]banning guns is overkill
just set up a federal licensing system - treat it like a vehicle. you need hours and hours of safety classes to be eligible to get a license. then you take a test. throw in some mental health tests that discount you for sociopathy or other illnesses. then you get a license. then you go buy a gun.
what if you want to sell it? different from vehicles. require the resale of guns to go through a third-party that has the ability to verify it. go to a gun store, pay a small fee, they'll run both your licenses, bam, sold your gun.
if you sell your gun illegally they'll have it registered to your name and you could be prosecuted for illegally selling a weapon to an unlicensed individual. a hefty fine and you're done. if you report it stolen, you're good.
we need revamped gun laws that control sales and help manage security. you shouldn't be able to own a gun if you don't know basic trigger safety and maintenance skills. in my state i can walk into walmart and buy a gun and walk right out - that's absurd.[/QUOTE]
I think you'd have to change the second amendment before any kind of licensing is implemented. The difference with vehicles is that they aren't a protected right in the constitution.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48580178]banning guns is overkill
just set up a federal licensing system - treat it like a vehicle. you need hours and hours of safety classes to be eligible to get a license. then you take a test. throw in some mental health tests that discount you for sociopathy or other illnesses. then you get a license. then you go buy a gun.
[/QUOTE]
We already do this in most of Europe. Working out fine so far. You need a license and also a safe/gun locker(depending on gun amount/size) to legally own a gun. Applies to everything from handguns to hunting rifles and every other firearm.
[editline]31st August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48580203]I think you'd have to change the second amendment before any kind of licensing is implemented. The difference with vehicles is that they aren't a protected right in the constitution.[/QUOTE]Constitution is old and outdated. It's about time US changes it. Right now it's no better than basing your laws on thousands of years old bible book. Times go on, laws should too. Just because some now dead people wrote a paper once does not make it valid forever.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48579823]Because we don't trust them with a list of people who own guns, because of what your own government did with such a list.[/QUOTE]
The US still managed to round people up into camps and strip them of all of their rights. I imagine those Italians, Germans and Japanese were armed.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48580208]Constitution is old and outdated. It's about time US changes it. Right now it's no better than basing your laws on thousands of years old bible book. Times go on, laws should too. Just because some now dead people wrote a paper once does not make it valid forever.[/QUOTE]
As an Australian, I agree. I really do. But try telling all of that to millions of Americans and hundreds of legislators. It's not going to happen. The federal government can only do so much regulation, and it's the same for the states. That's why I've been advocating for a market-based solution, unfortunately to much ridicule. The premise would be very simple - changing laws so that the federal government can fine gun dealers or previous owners if a gun is sold and then used to commit a crime or suicide. Sounds weird but it's not intended to punish dealers or for raising revenue. Let me explain:
Bob the redneck goes visits the gun dealer. He's been a regular for twenty years and generally keeps to himself; he's never used his guns to commit crimes. The dealer makes the sale, because Bob is a trustworthy customer. Then, there's a new customer after a handgun, Daryl. The dealer has never met Daryl before, and cannot trust him. The dealer could make the sale with no dramas, however when Daryl goes on a murder spree with that gun, the dealer is going to be slapped with a fine. The dealer suddenly finds he has a risk to manage.
How can the dealer manage their risk, and therefore manage whether guns end up in bad hands? Well, it's up to the dealer. The dealer may choose to require Daryl to pass a background check, a psychological exam, and sign up with a gun club first so he can be vetted for his responsibility with guns. Daryl will most-likely be caught out, so the dealer knows to not make the sale to Daryl. The difference with those precautions and government-mandated regulations (which may be unconstitutional) is that the dealer isn't simply meeting a minimal legal compliance, they are meeting their aversion to risk. If the dealer has a lower aversion to risk, they'll choose to be more-relaxed with their customers. If the dealer has a higher aversion to risk, they'll be far-more cautious, and place their customers under more tests.
Of course being fined would suck, and some untrustworthy people will slip through the cracks. So I imagine private insurance plans specifically for gun dealers in this case would appear, so the insurance can cover the cost of fines when incurred. And you know what the great thing is? I imagine a condition of the insurance is requiring the gun dealers to implement risk-mitigation measures, such as referring their new customers for psychological exams. Even if the dealer doesn't take up insurance, they'll still be pressured to practice discretion with their customers - because if every other dealer does but that dealer doesn't, all the bad apples will go to that dealer. Of course insurance would be expensive, so perhaps gun dealers would have income derived from arms sales be exempt from tax.
The weird thing is that the idea of licensing, gun registries, etc don't really conflict with the second amendment, which has always implicitly allowed for firearms regulation (and indeed, there were a lot of those back in early US history, and continued thereafter).
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48575661]But that's precisely one reason you [I]can[/I] compare Switzerland to the US. People don't kill each other with guns in the US because they have guns. They kill each other for a variety of other reasons. Guns make it easier, sure, but the gun isn't the [I]cause.[/I] That's why in parts of the US you see very high firearm ownership rates with very low crime rates and in other parts you see very low firearm ownership rates with very high crime rates. The issue is societal.[/QUOTE]
The guns per capita in switzerland is still significantly lower compared to the US. On top of that, I'd wager a significant portion of Swiss guns are hard to conceal pieces.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;48579541]I don't think you understand. I didn't say anyone was hunting with an assault rifle. Hence why people don't need them.[/QUOTE]
But no crimes are being committed with assault rifles. They are objectively not a threat to the greater population. So why take them away from the lawful owners who clawed through red tape to get them? Because they scare you all the way over in Australia?
Antdawg, there is so much wrong with what you propose. Not only can the government not do that because of multiple violations of the Constitution that would be. Its just plain wrong to punish a dealer for the actions of a customer. It'd be like suing car dealers for drunk driving deaths.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;48579541]I don't think you understand. I didn't say anyone was hunting with an assault rifle. Hence why people don't need them.[/QUOTE]
Now, when you say "assault rifle," what are you thinking of? You're probably thinking of civilian AR-15s, which, by definition, are not assault rifles. "AR" stands for "Armalite Rifle," just in case that was a point of confusion (and I've spoken to people where that [I]was[/I] a point). Actual assault rifles are verh, VERY heavily regulated, very rare, and exorbitantly priced - and that's before the price of the tax stamp and license you need to own one, to say nothing of the time that whole process takes.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48580809]The weird thing is that the idea of licensing, gun registries, etc don't really conflict with the second amendment, which has always implicitly allowed for firearms regulation (and indeed, there were a lot of those back in early US history, and continued thereafter).[/QUOTE]
Sort of an anti-gun myth. Well regulated militia in regards to the wording of the 2nd was written in means well equipped and well trained.
[QUOTE=SaltyWaters;48574717]It's blacks tho. Isn't that obvious by now?
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Racism" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
Should've been permabanned.
[editline]31st August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;48579486]I'm just saying that there is no need to own an assault rifle unless you live in a war zone.[/QUOTE]
Most Americans think they need to own an assault rifle because of the second amendment saying they have the right to bear arms there's no logic to it. Alot of Americans are also conspiracy theorists that think another civil war is coming and that they can take the government on.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;48579486]I'm just saying that there is no need to own an assault rifle unless you live in a war zone.[/QUOTE]
There's no need to own a sports car or a massive SUV either, considering they look scarier and are marginally more dangerous than a regular car. Your point?
[QUOTE=coldroll5;48582904]Most Americans think they need to own an assault rifle because of the second amendment saying they have the right to bear arms there's no logic to it. Alot of Americans are also conspiracy theorists that think another civil war is coming and that they can take the government on.[/QUOTE]
You got it wrong, gun owners all over the world feel the need to get one because they're fucking rad. I got my AK because it was cheap, easy to clean and operate, and fun as hell to shoot. All in all an excellent choice for a first rifle.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.