• Thousand Oaks parent: 'I don’t want thoughts and prayers. I want gun control.'
    145 replies, posted
California has that gun control and it sure as hell hasn't.
Wheres the information to back this up?
Exit polls also found high support in more gun control, basically if the current governments solution is to lock doors and shutter windows then stricter gun control will be an inevitability.
Could also just address some of the major underlying issues with gun violence. Mental health for suicides and mass shootings, poverty for suicides and general gun crime, education for general gun crime. California might be one of the better states on some of that but it's still very far from perfect. Clearly having very strict gun control laws doesn't really help so rather than doubling down on what clearly isn't working, you need to look at other possible solutions.
Well thats sorta of the point with Gun Control. Is to address those problems such as Mental Health and avoid giving guns to people who are like that.
But those issues are not actually gun control. Fixing poverty and education issues and improving mental healthcare doesn't directly have anything to do with guns at all. Gun violence improving is simply a side effect. California already has strict gun control laws which clearly aren't working so they really don't need more.
Well im not disagreeing that stuff will help as well. Imo it sorta needs to be a combination of both.
Why though? Clearly clamping down so hard on guns doesn't really accomplish anything. @Grenadiac or, I believe, @SKS should be able to go into more details because they're more knowledgeable on the subject than I am but simply banning weapons or accessories for them has proven to have basically zero effect on gun violence in any way. There are other actual gun control overhauls that could be done but the Democrats just want to ban shit with ineffective feelgood measures while the Republicans don't seem to want to do anything one way or the other.
Gun Control is hugely ineffective, a recent study done by ARES and Small Arms Watch found that all it accomplishes is pushing criminals into manufacturing their own goods(PDF). We need a lot of things in this country, but gun control done for the sake of gun control is counterproductive. The issue of criminal activity, mental health, and otherwise must be dealt with at the source. Society as a whole pushes those with kinks into the deep-end, and it has become a problem in recent years as many of them see the end of an anti-hero in going out with a mass shooting. Dealing with these issues is not going to be easy by any stretch of the imagination. It requires rethinking of several systems in place in this country that effectively do token service over helping those in need.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_shootings_in_California California has had more mass shootings in its history than just about every European country, Australia, or Canada, despite having the strictest gun control in America, and being the first state to ban "assault weapons" about 30 years ago.
I agree with her 100%. It's a shame it won't happen. Nobody needs a firearm. The second amendment, the "right to bear arms", is a ridiculous fetishization of a type of machinery that was invented with the sole purpose of destruction & death. In civilized countries weapon bans and weapon control have been put in place and had massive effect. The evidence is clear as crystal, so you really need to wear a big, red blindfold to ignore it. Thoughts and prayers!
Also, don't read the thread before making ill-informed posts that ignore how unrealistic outright banning firearms in America would be. And just a pro tip: There's plenty of people in the US that actually do need a firearm. It's called hunting. And it's something that many people in rural areas absolutely must resort to just to make ends meet.
I guess the Czech Republic, with a gun control scheme comparable to the US and a total lack of mass shootings, doesn't count as a civilized country because it doesn't fit the gun control narrative.
Well that’s a very confident claim to make. And not only is it incorrect, even if it were correct, the point would be worthless. Firstly, you don’t get to tell someone else what they do or do not need. I often hear this in terms of the AR-15, so I will be focusing on that, but the logic could be applied equally to, for instance, an actual assault rifle. Believe it or not, these weapons do have their place in situations where other devices may be inadequate, after all, in 2016 for instance rifles were used in almost twice as many defensive gun cases as there were rifle murders. And for handguns like the one used in the indecent that sourced this thread, you can look at the larger number of DGU cases that dwarf victimization figures by a large margin. The logic of your claim is faulty in other ways as well. For instance, there are many things in our society that are catalysts for the deaths of many and have little tangible value, and one could just as easily say that no one needs those things either. Swimming pools are used almost exclusively for recreation and are home to a wide margin more child deaths due to drowning, I mean, think of the children, does anyone need a swimming pool? Alcohol caused over 33,000 deaths in 2015, does anyone need alcohol? How about a car that can go 150mph+? Does anyone really need a high end, racing grade sports car? Why on earth should a civilian have access to high-speed vehicles of any sort? What reason is there for them, aside from "being able to break the speed limit"? As we know, poor driving and drag racing are responsible for many fatalities, even children. So obviously something must be done and people shouldn’t be able to own those vehicles of death, right? The cliched response to this is that guns and the other examples are incomparable as “a swimming pool is not a deadly weapon”,  and because apparently guns were designed for and only exist to kill. This is patently false. According to a Pew Research report, 30% of gun owners cite having guns primarily for the purpose sport shooting and 13% for collecting. Already you can see that killing is not the sole use case for guns. Really I shouldn’t have to explain this because if you think about it, with the country having more guns than people if guns were only used for killing America would be on fire. I guess me, and virtually all other gun owners are just using them wrong. And when it does come to killing, in that same Pew report 38% are for hunting animals and 67% are for protection. And guns being able to be used for (the threat of) killing is not as bad as it first sounds when you consider that defensive gun use occurs much more frequently than offensive gun violence by all evaluations. So if you really want to go down the path of restricting access to things that you consider to be not absolutely essential because of perceived negative impact, it doesn't make sense to start with guns. Maybe try opioids. At the end of the day, all similar proposals to restrict something based on that logic encounter another wall:you don’t only get what you can prove you need. Just imagine what kind of precedent that would set. The onus is not on me to prove a need, it’s on the regulatory powers to prove that ownership is not justified, despite desire. You shouldn’t have to fight tooth and nail for everything to prove you need it, they should have to fight tooth and nail to prove that you can’t have it. So stop thinking that you can tell other people what they do or do not need. A final point? It’s not called “The Bill of Needs”. When you tie rights to necessity it’s a race to the bottom. Everything you need is provided in prison. Like Australia? Like Canada? Like Brazil? Many like to claim that Australian gun control schemes would solve problems here in the US, led on by misinformation. The facts of the matter however support the opposite. Australian gun control would not only be blatantly unconstitutional but also ineffective based on the lack of success they had abroad. The common assertion is that their incredibly strict laws stopped mass shootings and reduced violence, but according to a Melbourne Institute paper analyzing the trends before and after, "The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates." and a piece published in the Justice Policy Journal "[...]does not find support for the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia." It may be hard for some to understand why, but in short Australia was a safe place long before their increased regulation, and gun crime was decreasing long before the bans were implemented, and did not decrease at a more rapid rate afterwards. The reductions in firearm violence was not accelerated or significantly impacted by their stricter laws, so really they lost freedoms to no benefit. Saying that the low gun violence rate in Australia is due to those stricter laws is like saying that Donald Trump is responsible for our currently low rate of unemployment. The trends were set long before the gun laws were implemented, and before Donald took office. It does not make sense to give either of them credit. A parting chart for this point, because visuals are nice. https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/1383/8d7fd669-0554-499d-bc25-3cc6e912d5b8/image.png I would also like to explain to people that by supporting Australian style gun regulations, you are actually supporting mass confiscation (enabled by registration no less). Why have you never heard of the Australian gun confiscation? Simple. They called it a “mandatory buyback” instead. And if you would like to tell me how being forced to turn in your firearms as a law abiding citizen, under pressure of prosecution if you refuse to do so because you haven’t done anything wrong, is any different in terms of results and effects on citizens than a traditional confiscation, I am all ears. And as far as Canada goes, Canada in terms of firearms legislation is (in)famously known primarily for one thing. Registration. In 1995 Canada passed a law that mandated all guns and all gun owners be entered into a national database as well as reclassifying replica firearms to be prohibited. It was expected to cost $119 million (which would be offset by adding fees) and was expected to make Canada safer and save lives. Sure it would criminalize everyday people, but just imagine the benefits of a registry! It’s for the greater good right? Wrong. In the end it cost $2.7 billion dollars. Yes, $2.7 billion with a “b”. But hey, as long as it works right? We’ve got to do everything we can, anything, to save a life... right? Well too bad it didn’t save any lives then. Over the registries nineteen year life span, it did not solve one single murder case. Even the Former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner stated that “a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them”4. Canada still has a registry to this day. Beyond that, I want to point out that Canada is a prime example of the laws on the books never being good enough for those that have detest for guns. In the words of Mr. Bones, “The ride never ends!”. For Canada already has several magazine capacity limits, a monstrous list of firearms banned by name so large that even the official website advises you to use the ctrl+f search function to find any specific gun, mandatory safety training for all individuals seeking to own a firearm for any reason, and a mandatory 28 day waiting period for all first time applicants of a license (yes, you need a license for all guns). In addition they have rigorous storage requirements, strict laws on handguns in regards to citizen ownership, carrying guns is essentially prohibited with few exceptions, and they have bans on certain types of ammunition. Despite all of that however, it only takes one tragedy for people to act like no gun laws exist and go, “We need more!”. Right after a mass shooting in July of 2018 that left three dead and thirteen wounded (good job preventing that, current laws?), people were up in arms, trying to completely ban handguns and further restrict ammunition. My point is that it will never be “good enough” for someone who irrationally hates gun ownership. That is part of why people who care about preserving firearm ownership rights fight tooth and nail every step of the way. Because when it comes to firearm laws, the slippery slope fallacy is not a fallacy at all. k Yeah, you should take yours off.
I did read it. Don't really care. The world is bigger than America. Gun control has been effective globally in multiple countries. Conservative America has their fingers in their ears to blatantly easy solutions. Hunting licenses with extensive background checks and 2-3 years of waiting with registration & licensing on each weapon which then require yearly check-ups and renewals. Require by law unused firearms to be in locked combination safes, and keep ammunition in a separate safe with a separate combination. Last time I checked the internet didn't kill 37,000 people every year
You read logical well-reasoned arguments and don't care, why? Because they don't support your preconceptions? And you do realize that the Democrats are just as guilty of ignoring actual solutions, right? The Democrats always try to enact provably ineffective feelgood measures that have little to no impact on the problem. Meanwhile the Republicans want to do nothing at all one way or the other. Both are wrong. And if your "easy solution" is simply banning weapons then it's not half as easy as you seem to think. I won't bother addressing that though because you've supposedly read the thread and someone already explained why this wouldn't work. We already have hunting licenses. Background checks, sure, but both sides completely fail on adequate background check measures. What's even the point of 2-3 wait time though? I legitimately do not see how that would actually help at all. Also to my knowledge the latter is actually law in some places, or something similar to it, and the only thing it actually prevents is accidental deaths and some suicides. Fine. Let's look at cars. Even in a place with gun violence issues like the US cars injure and kill FAR more people every year than guns do. You don't need a car. You can walk, ride a bike, or simply take public transportation. Should we ban cars? No because that's fucking stupid. You don't base the argument for a ban on the concept that you don't need what you want to ban. That's stupid as fuck and I'm honestly surprised I have to explain that to anyone.
I really hope you want to ban ALL cars too. And boats. And tableware.
People in rural areas can keep their guns for hunting once the dumb-shits stop blasting holes in stop-signs.
"irrelevent to your point"? He literally tackled every sentence in your relatively tiny post, was your point some ephermeral 4th dimensional artistic abstraction or did you just not feel like responding to such overwhelming care and detail being put into proving you utterly wrong? At least have the dignity to respond properly instead of dismissing the entirety of the post. Either way, as someone who has looked into this gun control issue with a friend, him being highly politically active in that arena and myself beginning to enter that stage aswell, it really is our belief that gun control in this country would be unbelievably difficult to enforce, simply because Americans could very easily build their own firearms and otherwise maintain a stable supply out of country, not to mention the immense amount of unregistered (and thus untraceable) weapons that more often than not lie in the hands of the very criminals that people buy guns to protect themselves from.
So stop signs not having holes in them is more important than people not starving? I uh... Kinda have to outright disagree with the sentiment there.
Banning & harshly restricting access to firearms is an effective method. There's countless instances of this, my own country included. But hey, let's shut our eyes and pretend thoughts and prayers will help. What do democrats have to do with anything? Did I mention democrats? This is a bi-partisan issue, so flinging shit on Democrats seems a bit strange. Clearly you don't do it well enough then. Why the wait time? So that even if you decide you want to go on a murderous rampage with your bolt-action hunting rifle you have some time to not only fail the mental health check-ups but also maybe realize that what you're doing is a bad idea, as opposed to just grabbing your AR off the shelf and going off in a preschool. Oh, and I see, it "only" prevents accidental deaths and "only" prevents some suicides. I see. I guess these people don't matter then because they don't fill your statistical quota to being an "important problem". The #1 rule of a car is not "Don't aim it at something you do not wish to destroy". Enough said, really.
That's an incredibly narrow and simple way of looking at it. I'm talking about the kind of reckless chucklefucks that would go around driving and shooting shit (most likely while drunk, no doubt) that never needed to be shot at to begin with.
Riiiiiight..... https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/1383/57c4c5fc-397b-4375-8004-262ba52bf04f/image.png https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/1383/788de821-9c44-4fbb-a0d0-20c07ccfc609/image.png https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/1383/3f666df0-d759-47cf-9fe7-a26f8989a182/image.png
Frankly I'd say you're dead wrong at that. I aim my car at empty roadway, which I intend to destroy my driving over it. Also you do realize that someone can legally purchase the firearm used in this mass shooting in Sweden? You don't have as strict gun control as you seem to think, which is a trend common among most European gun control advocates.
It's not an effective method in the US. For reasons someone explained in this very thread you claim to have read. If you had actually read the thread as you claimed you have, you'd be aware of this. And of course you didn't mention Democrats. You mentioned "Conservative America" while not addressing the complete ineffectiveness of Democratic gun control legislation. So I brought it up. As someone who has consistently voted Democrat since registering to vote, they're completely fucking retarded when it comes to gun control. And the Republican party is no better. So you have to plan your hunts 2-3 years in advance? And uh... I don't see how waiting 2-3 years in a country that has basically nonexistent healthcare systems for most people is going to help anyone fail a mental health check. It's not like they'd be checking your mental health every two seconds because that'd be expensive as fuck. Way to completely misinterpret what I said. I was pointing out that it's largely an ineffective measure. You seem to be so worried about shooting sprees judging by the focus of your posts so clearly the only thing that actually matters are those committing shooting sprees so... Yes? At least according to the focus you've taken here. No, not "enough said" really. That is literally just hand-waving away the issue altogether because it doesn't play into your narrative and it only serves to undermine any validity in the point you're trying to make here. If you want to convince people you are right then you need to actually debate, not just hand-wave shit away. And if you don't want to convince anyone then you're literally just shitposting which I'm fairly sure is still bannable. You're really missing the point quite badly. You said: This is outright stating that people who need guns for hunting don't matter. We can worry about them after some dumbasses doing some dumbass shit against inanimate objects. I'm a little more worried about the people who would risk starving than a stupid stop sign. Yeah, those people are a problem. Though as you yourself just pointed out, they do that likely while drunk. Last I checked there is no place in the US that drunk driving is legal to begin with. So if they're already doing illegal shit to begin with, what makes you think that banning more shit at the expense of people who actually do need it is going to help at all?
Shall we compare to the US? https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/112373/8796169a-dc9b-4ca1-bab9-50438dafd92a/2010_homicide_suicide_rates_high-income_countries.png
This is you putting words in my mouth, is what it is. I don't think reckless dipshits should have guns. Do you?
Shall we compare the US and non-cherrypicked countries? https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/1383/7212da3e-17d9-4c92-8521-d15fd7534f7d/image.png
No, of course I don't. But I don't think that people who actually do need access to firearms should lose access in the process. There are other far more realistic methods that can be enacted to deal with the reckless dipshits without harming that other group. In fact if anything those other methods would help prevent those reckless dipshits as well as helping out those who do need access to firearms, and even helping out a lot of people who don't give a shit about firearms one way or the other. Seems like an overall far better solution than simply banning shit at the expense of part of the populace, doesn't it?
I was more pointing out that Coydog's comment that his country (Sweden) has massively lower gun deaths than America does is correct.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.