The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[Fatherted 129]

Simple. Regulations as follows:

-Before being allowed to take any weapon, all citizens must be subject to a mental health test. If they do below average, they may not withdraw a gun.

-No Assault or Explosive weapons. No automatics. Hunting Rifles (Maximum Clip Size 6), Shotguns (Maximum Clip Size 7), Small Calibre Pistols (Maximum Clip Size 10)

-Breaches of Firearms law is a serious offence.

I actually live in Switzerland, and here there is no such thing as a gun license unless you are serving in the militia (required for citizens from 25-40), and you cannot get ammo except on a training exercise or operation. In Great Britain/Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland, guns can be acquired through firearms licenses, but you need a valid reason. (Farmer, Vulnerable to thieves etc.)

Guess how many homicides we had in GB/NI/ROI this year? 0. In Switzerland? 0.

Do you enjoy freedom, or the illusion of freedom under your totalitarian "democracy"?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

But do remember that guns don't kill people.  People kill people.

 

However, I am on your side when  it comes to the restrictions you've laid out.  No point in making mass murder easy.

[Fatherted 129]

Equally, cars don't kill people, people kill people. Smoking doesn't kill, the people who smoke do.

Even better, give schools armed guards.

Only in America would this become required.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people... using guns... 

[AcmeSigns 97]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people... using guns... 

Not necessarily. Years ago a homeless fellow here was killed with a rock.

[Hamish 1,369]

Easy access to guns doesn't kill people.

 

Its a device that can kill someone with a push of a button. Kids shouldn't be able to have easy access this kind of stuff.

The boy wasn't legally allowed to drink alcohol, yet (to the best of my knowledge) its legal for him to possess a rifle. I don't see how this is right.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I'd be more concerned getting into a car on a busy road filled with respectable drivers going to respectable jobs than going past the house of a man with a gun...

[T Wrecks 10,209]

Not the best two things to compare.

 

Firstly, our modern society is based on mobility - economy would collapse if people couldn't commute between home and job, and public transport cannot cover all the transportation and travel needs. Hence, individual traffic will continue to play an important role - not to mention the additional benefits of mobility, such as being able to visit friends, to take part in social/cultural activities that don't take place in my backyard, etc.

 

Secondly, a car is something many people use all the time. You may very well travel hundreds of thousands of kilometres in it, and while there is always a certain risk of damage, injury, or even death, there is actual, real-world use that makes us accept this risk.

 

But what does a gun do? All it can do is kill people and animals. That's really all the use there is to it. Many societies run successfully without a gun in every second home.

 

Except for very remote locations, where there is actual danger for life and limb due to wild animals, guns in private hands are just a tranquiliser that will give their fearful owners a sense of being protected. It's a totally useless topic to discuss, though. Most gun owners' fear and egoism is quite obviously big enough that even hundreds of children mowed down by gunfire will not be more important to them than that reassuring feeling of having a loaded gun under their cushion - for when the *insert racial slur here* or the communists or the aliens come.

 

The statistics listing certain murders prevented by brave, armed home owners on one side and ascertained deaths through abuse of, or accidents with, privately owned guns would be a miserable sight, I suppose.

 

Thus, nothing will change, the school shootings will continue, and hundreds of children will die. But it doesn't matter, as long as your average guy can sleep well, right?  After all, a good night's sleep is important, and hopefully those occasional bullets will hit some other guy's children.

[Delecto 941]

What's the purpose of a car??? Allows you to quickly go from point A to point B.

What's the purpose of a gun??? Allows you to easily kill people.

I hate guns and those who love guns.

[Fatherted 129]

Guns are cool in videogames and paintball. Those are strategy in a grim setting. Real guns are effectively machines for killing innocent people, in most situations. It really is pathetic some people think that they have a real purpose in real life other than to remove the gift/purpose of life.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I disagree with the Rad Progs here. The vast majority of guns are NOT meant for mass killing. Some are meant to maim, some are meant to stun, some are meant for occasional precision strikes (such as most hunting and sniper rifles), any guns meant for killing sprees (fully automatic) were banned in the USA decades ago (except by the military but that is a different story this pacifists is afraid to discuss here). Also, the majority of murderers did not legally acquire their guns so restrictions would do little-to-no good. Lastly, the UK has a significantly higher violent crime rate than the USA. The problem is culture, not access to guns.

--Ocram

Edit: Switzerland and the UK do have murders. So everyone claiming they have a rate of 0 for murders has permanently lost credibility and the respect that comes with it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Let us not turn this into a chapter on banning guns.  Guns don't kill people.  People kill people.  Guns are simply a convenience, but if someone is determined to kill there are plenty of other means.  A human being is a pretty fragile item when it comes right down to it.  It simply becomes a matter of will, idea and the guts to stand up to someone and do it if you don't have a gun.

[mattmontgomer16 9]

On the topic of the recent shooting in Colorado.


I for one consider myself a opponent to large scale gun control as I think it would bring up more problems than it would solve. The reason being is this: Ultimately no sign, law, ban, or check will end all shootings, sure it might bring the number down but it would only make the problem worse by hurting law abiding people who own assault rifles and guns in general.  

99.99999% of the time when someone buys a gun it is not for ill will. Most people are not buying guns to shoot a school full of children or a crowded shopping mall. People are buying guns to protect their families and for sport.
Guns are not the problem.
Take this into consideration:   

Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.^[1] In recent times a minority of political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.^[2] A referendum in February 2011 rejected stricter gun control.^[3] 

 

Switzerland REQUIRES people to be trained with guns and requires people to have guns. Last I checked there have been no mass shootings out of Switzerland. 
I'm not saying Americans should all be issued guns, that would be illogical but I think this shows that guns are simply not the problem.

The problem is people and their mental state of mind. All of these shootings have been perpetrated by someone with a mental issue or in a bad state of mind. If we simply expand background checks and our mental heath system than the issue of gun violence in America would drop drastically.
People are not getting the help they need when it comes to mental health. We can argue all day about the 2nd amendment and who should have the right to carry weapons but in the end it comes down to this.

Who pulls the trigger, The gun or the person behind it?  

 

[Bipin 3,402]

On the topic of the recent shooting in Colorado.

I for one consider myself a opponent to large scale gun control as I think it would bring up more problems than it would solve. The reason being is this: Ultimately no sign, law, ban, or check will end all shootings, sure it might bring the number down but it would only make the problem worse by hurting law abiding people who own assault rifles and guns in general.  

99.99999% of the time when someone buys a gun it is not for ill will. Most people are not buying guns to shoot a school full of children or a crowded shopping mall. People are buying guns to protect their families and for sport.

Guns are not the problem.

Take this into consideration:   

Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.^[1] In recent times a minority of political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.^[2] A referendum in February 2011 rejected stricter gun control.^[3]

 

 

Switzerland REQUIRES people to be trained with guns and requires people to have guns. Last I checked there have been no mass shootings out of Switzerland. 

I'm not saying Americans should all be issued guns, that would be illogical but I think this shows that guns are simply not the problem.

The problem is people and their mental state of mind. All of these shootings have been perpetrated by someone with a mental issue or in a bad state of mind. If we simply expand background checks and our mental heath system than the issue of gun violence in America would drop drastically.

People are not getting the help they need when it comes to mental health. We can argue all day about the 2nd amendment and who should have the right to carry weapons but in the end it comes down to this.

Who pulls the trigger, The gun or the person behind it?  

 

 

Mental health is indeed the largest issue at hand, or certainly one ranking highly amongst them, for it is often at the root of all violence. Guns are just a popular vector to manifest those mental instabilities. Just out of question, does Switzerland allow militia members to keep ammunition at home? I'm aware that in some countries with a similar militia system, all ammunition is kept in an ASP; an ammo dump (this includes not just AT/HE projectiles, but small arms ammunition as well). The only time militia members are allowed to access the depot is during combat operations or training exercises, but I'm not really sure how Switzerland handles this. I'd appreciate if someone could shed some light on this.

[mattmontgomer16 9]

 

On the topic of the recent shooting in Colorado.

I for one consider myself a opponent to large scale gun control as I think it would bring up more problems than it would solve. The reason being is this: Ultimately no sign, law, ban, or check will end all shootings, sure it might bring the number down but it would only make the problem worse by hurting law abiding people who own assault rifles and guns in general.  

99.99999% of the time when someone buys a gun it is not for ill will. Most people are not buying guns to shoot a school full of children or a crowded shopping mall. People are buying guns to protect their families and for sport.

Guns are not the problem.

Take this into consideration:   

Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.^[1] In recent times a minority of political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.^[2] A referendum in February 2011 rejected stricter gun control.^[3]

 

 

Switzerland REQUIRES people to be trained with guns and requires people to have guns. Last I checked there have been no mass shootings out of Switzerland. 

I'm not saying Americans should all be issued guns, that would be illogical but I think this shows that guns are simply not the problem.

The problem is people and their mental state of mind. All of these shootings have been perpetrated by someone with a mental issue or in a bad state of mind. If we simply expand background checks and our mental heath system than the issue of gun violence in America would drop drastically.

People are not getting the help they need when it comes to mental health. We can argue all day about the 2nd amendment and who should have the right to carry weapons but in the end it comes down to this.

Who pulls the trigger, The gun or the person behind it?  

 

 

Mental health is indeed the largest issue at hand, or certainly one ranking highly amongst them, for it is often at the root of all violence. Guns are just a popular vector to manifest those mental instabilities. Just out of question, does Switzerland allow militia members to keep ammunition at home? I'm aware that in some countries with a similar militia system, all ammunition is kept in an ASP; an ammo dump (this includes not just AT/HE projectiles, but small arms ammunition as well). The only time militia members are allowed to access the depot is during combat operations or training exercises, but I'm not really sure how Switzerland handles this. I'd appreciate if someone could shed some light on this.

 

 

Prior to 2007 members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50 rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that was regularly audited by the government. This was so that, in the case of an emergency, the militia could respond quickly. However, since 2007 this practice has been discontinued. Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep their military-issued ammunition at home. The rest of the militia get their ammunition from their military armory in the event of an emergency.^[11]

There is no restriction on possessing personally-purchased ammunition capable of being used in their issued weapon, and such ammunition is readily available in shops and at many firing ranges.

I agree that access to ammunition in large quantity is a bad idea. There is no reason someone should have a vast storepile of ammunition for assault rifles.    

[hym 358]

I agree that access to ammunition in large quantity is a bad idea. There is no reason someone should have a vast storepile of ammunition for assault rifles.    

 

There are gun enthusiasts who regularly participate in shooting competitions where they can easily fire several hundred rounds in a few hours.  Add in private training time and they can go through thousands of rounds in a month.

[mattmontgomer16 9]

 

I agree that access to ammunition in large quantity is a bad idea. There is no reason someone should have a vast storepile of ammunition for assault rifles.    

 

There are gun enthusiasts who regularly participate in shooting competitions where they can easily fire several hundred rounds in a few hours.  Add in private training time and they can go through thousands of rounds in a month.

 

This is proof that ultimately everything falls on the back of metal heath. If we improve mental heath less shootings will happen and gun enthusiasts and recreational users will not be hurt.    

[AkemiAzula 280]

mental health is just a 'hip' phrase describing whether somebody is happy or not. I tend not to employ such 'vogue' phrases. I know what a madman is like. My neighbour was mad and had knives. My parents were mad in another way.

 

I certainly agree strongly with 'people kill people'. Like I said before, consider cars. One obvious example. A car travelling at fifty miles per hour can do more damage than a bullet and has a much better chance of striking the victim.

 

However I also note a trend. These days we are just as likely to be wary of cyber threats than 'real' threats. It seems to me that gun usage will become as rare as hunting with a spear one of these days. 

 

And as has been said changing the law will be as effective as changing the speed limit. Nobody will obey it unless they are directly under police observation. It won't stop hoons.

[AcmeSigns 97]

...any guns meant for killing sprees (fully automatic) were banned in the USA decades ago (except by the military but that is a different story this pacifists is afraid to discuss here).

Erm...not quite. As I have pointed out numerous times in the past, fully automatic weapons are completely legal to own. They are only 'banned' by some, but not all, of the States. The Gun Control Act of 1968 clearly allows for the civilian possession of fully automatic weapons. One needs to pass a background check, purchase from a Class III licensed dealer and pay a $200.00 'Transfer Tax'. The process can also take up to 7 months before you are allowed to take possession. That isn't the worst of it. The weapon must have been manufactured before 19 May 1986. That's where the real cost comes in. A legal-to-own automatic weapon can really get up there in price. For example: A Colt M16A2 can range from $20,000 - $54,995 (the 'high end' is for an unused 'mint' condition weapon). Not the sort of thing your average Joe will be going out and getting for plinking.

 

http://www.firearmtutorials.com/index.php/class-3_nfa/urban-myth-buying-a-machine

 

And if you're really interested do a Google/YouTube search for: Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot. Lots of ammo spent from lots of high value weapons. And all for 'fun'.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Edit: Switzerland and the UK do have murders. So everyone claiming they have a rate of 0 for murders has permanently lost credibility and the respect that comes with it.

No one ever claimed that. What they do have however, is a murder rate that is not so ridiculously high like in the United States.

 

 

Also, great that people want to improve mental health, but it appears to me almost no one understands what that's going to cost. You don't improve mental health the way you improve regular health. Its not a matter of just eating enough vegetables and fruit and taking a shower often. It means a structural change the way society operates. It means reducing stress, it means reducing work hours, it means improving the quality of life, it means lifting people out of poverty, it means reducing average peoples debt, it means improving the job market and it means strengthening the middle class. And from what I've seen that has happened the past 30 years, the US is fundamentally incapable of doing this, because it would require a massive shift in political ideology and discourse. No way that such a thing is going to happen under this congress and this polarized political landscape. 

 

So, what is going to happen? Nothing. The US will do nothing, and its just counting down before the next guy grabs a bunch of guns and starts shooting up a school or a mall. And when it happens, everyone in Washington can act all outraged again and vow that this time it must be different and this time comprehensive steps will be taken to curb gun violence. And the rest of the world will shake its head and say 'only in America' and within three weeks everyone will have forgotten about it again. 

[Duke87 1,070]

With regards to addressing causes and all that... let's consider some statistics.

 

Total gun deaths in the US in 2011: 31,672

Gun homicides in the US in 2011: 11,101

Gun suicides in the US in 2011: 19,766

Accidental gun deaths in the US in 2011: 851

 

So what does this tell us? Well first of all it tells us that only about a third of all gun deaths are homicides. Nearly two thirds are suicides. Now, suicides aren't a lovely thing either, but a high number of them says nothing about your safety on account of there being guns out there - under normal circumstances, a suicide kills only the person who chooses to take their own life.

 

Also consider (according to the same site) that there are anywhere between 270,000,000 and 310,000,000 civilian owned guns in the US, both legal/registered and illegal/unregistered. This means the overall odds that a gun will be used to kill someone in a given year are about 1 in 10,000.

 

 

Now here's the kicker: according to this page, the total number of people murdered in the US in mass shootings since 1982 is 549. That is an average of only about 17 people per year. Out of over total 10,000 homicides.

 

In other words, aiming to prevent mass shootings is not an effective way to put a dent in the number of gun deaths in the US.

 

Meanwhile, for 2011, there were 1,824 homicides reported as being gang related. So, perhaps programs aimed at keeping impoverished youth off the streets and out of trouble might be more worthwhile, hmmmm?

[Ocram's Razr 963]

1. -Before being allowed to take any weapon, all citizens must be subject to a mental health test. If they do below average, they may not withdraw a gun.

2. -No Assault or Explosive weapons. No automatics.

3. Guess how many homicides we had in GB/NI/ROI this year? 0. In Switzerland? 0.

4. Do you enjoy freedom, or the illusion of freedom under your totalitarian "democracy"?

Because LexusInfernus doesn't believe me I had to quote this.

1.I agree that this is reasonable.

2. An assault weapon is any weapon that can be used for assault. A murder weapon is any weapon used for murder. That means a kitchen knife, a baseball bat, a pipe, a wrench, a crowbar, anything can be an assault weapon.

3. Wrongo! Although the murder rate and gun crime rate are both lower in the UK than the USA, they are not 0; as a matter of fact, their violent crime rate is higher than ours!

4. I enjoy freedom and I am not a hypocritical lier.

You are incredible!

Sincerely,

--Ocram

[AkemiAzula 280]

I think Duke87's statistics are worth considering.

 

I think the problem is a cultural one. If you want to prevent the rare incident of a highly publicised mass shooting then have a nationwide mental health program with massive funding and totalitarian observation of your citizens.

 

If you want to reduce gun crime in general target gang violence and gang culture.

[Hetalia fanboy 2]

Personally a gun is a tool. Let me ask you this guys If someone slit peoples throats with knives do we blame the knife or do we blame the person? Also Most gun owners in america are responsible. Why should they be punished or be forced into more restrictions because some inept crazed individual got his hand on a gun and killed a group of people. I mean think about that. I Understand europeians never had a gun culture like americans had but then again most people in europe dont have Americas car culture. America developed a culture around guns, drugs, sex, cars, and booze. So whats the big deal also the number of gun deaths have been going down and also most of the gun deaths in america are due to gang crimes if we eliminated those deaths the number would be more to around a 1000 deaths per year by guns Still high. But those deaths would be at a lower rate.

 

I mean America has a high crime rate per industrialized world. We also are the number 1 consumer of hard drugs, the number one in gun ownership Switzerland number 3 has the lowest murder and drug use rate.  Gun control will not solve Americas gun problem. Compared to europe its a crisis here murders are something people see on the nightly news on tv. Most of it is gang violence also its been going down much of it.of the 12,000 murders commited in america each year 9,000 of which are commited by guns about 8000 of those 9000 gun deaths can be attibuted to gang crime. If we took that out of the equation America would have about 1000 gun murders a year still high of course but the number would be closer towards Australias or new Zelands crime rate.

[APSMS 1,892]

To be clear, I think culture is a large problem, and one that should be remedied (though I have little faith in this actually occurring) before we turn our attention to the machines. Man was equally bloody and violent when he possessed only the axe and sword. Babylon, Persia, and Greece were all testament to this, as were the Barbarians of Northern Europe and Scandinavia. Very efficient and fearsome killing machines; guns were not necessary, so clearly they are not the perpetrators of these types of crimes.

 

Now I don't own a gun, and will hopefully never be required/forced (drafted) to use one against another person, but I don't think banning guns, or strictly speaking large capacity assault weapons is an appropriate answer to what generally appears to me as a series of very tragic incidents which use guns as the primary instruments of death. I feel that there is an inappropriate amount of emphasis placed on removing the tools of death from the hands of civilians and placing them into the hands of the government. Last time I checked, this policy worked extremely well in Nazi Germany, and many Jews freshly deprived of weapons were handily sent off to concentration camps with little resistance. Switzerland, the most heavily armed country in Europe (per capita) retained its armed neutrality throughout both world wars successfully, despite being in the smack middle of the European theatre of war.

 

Finally, if one could get rid of all guns, I would not object. We might soon construct more deadly weapons, but at least everybody would start on an equal playing field. To suggest, remotely, that the government is an organization to be trusted with interests of the public good is absurd, and extreme folly at best. Perhaps I might remind all that one of the most tragic, and highly publicized mass school shooting of modern times (~50 years) before Columbine was the incident at Kent State University in 1970, where the government (Ohio National Guard) opened fire on a bunch of peace protestors, killing four and wounding 9. Perhaps not incredibly tragic in quantitative loss of life, but considering the protestors were armed with flowers tells me that the government is also not the most reliable agent to put the trust of my personal safety in.

 

I'm not claiming to have the answers. I will say that to believe that the government should be the sole possessor of such efficient killing machines is to deny that governments are capable of great evil when their people lack a viable avenue of recourse.

 

When you outlaw guns, only the outlaws have guns. This is a bit of a trite statement, but it's worth reiterating. The question remains whether we are really willing to completely trust our government with our personal safety when the government is clearly not content enough with the level of its own safety that it has to spy on its own citizens to ensure its survival. Counter-terrorism is not a valid excuse. "Any man that would give up a pound of freedom for an ounce of security is a fool who deserves neither, and will lose both."

[Bipin 3,402]

mental health is just a 'hip' phrase describing whether somebody is happy or not. I tend not to employ such 'vogue' phrases. I know what a madman is like. My neighbour was mad and had knives. My parents were mad in another way.

 

Perhaps for the context in which it is most popularly used that this is true, but mental health is indeed a real issue. Denotatively, mental health simply boils down to the psychological competence or lack thereof, of an individual, and how hidden factors often not explicit to an outside party, or even to the ill individual, may affect one's decision making with the potential in the scenarios discussed to elicit violent acts. Believing otherwise; as if psychology does not play a role in shootings, would be ignorant, but I don't think that's what you're getting at. That would just be silly, which you are not. As far as I am concerned, and I think I can speak for many others here, when I mention "mental health" I do not use it in the convoluted, trivialized context popular with the media, but rather a a synonym for psychological (in)capacity and/or disorders. I hope that clarifies things, as far as my perspective goes. 

[AkemiAzula 280]

My point was that an ounce of tackling drugs and gang culture seems to my mind worth a pound of tackling the complex reasons for the far rarer acts which are so exposef by media.

[Fatherted 129]

My definition of homocide is a large number of people, I could be wrong but I didn't factor in single murders. Every country has murderers.

An assault weapon in gun context is a fully/semi automatic powerful weapon, with multiple rounds per second in some cases. An example is "Assault Rifle".

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

You wouldn't consider a K-Bar an assault weapon?

[Fatherted 129]

A K-Bar? It's just a metal bar. So yes, you can assault someone with it, and it is an assault weapon. I was talking gun-context.