Gun Control Laws in the USA

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Constitutional amendments can only be repealed with a 4/5 ths vote (learned it in class but can not find a supporting websight. ) With how polarized politics are (well american politics anyway)

I'm pretty sure the situation is dire enough that 4/5 votes. And do you have any proof that American poloticians are polarized?

I truly do not see the 2nd amendment being repealed, Especially because it is in the first ten.

I don't see how this would stop it.

Also the 2nd amendment does have it benefits as well as disadvantages.

What are the advantages?

 

[Lore]

She was given a gun when she was 21 by her friend. It was for her to keep in her purse and use only for self defense. She was a lot older when the incident happened.

The law was passed months before the incident. She wasn't allowed to carry the gun in her purse. She said it herself, she reached into her purse to pull out the gun. She also said the only reason her father rushed the madman was because he saw she didn't have her gun.

I seriously doubt she just thought about the gun after she left the restaurant. It doesn't matter though. Either way if she did have the gun, it would have most likely allowed her to easily put a stop to the situation.

We could argue on forever on the specifics of this example, which is why I brought it up.

Before you use something as an example, think about what people can find wrong with it. In this case, you have no way to prove whether the gun would help or not, etc etc.

An example where a gun was actually used would have helped you out a lot more. Try to find an example that can help your case the most, not an example that will only slightly help it.

Sorry for the late reply.

I'm pretty sure the situation is dire enough that 4/5 votes.

How is the situation dire? Criminals will always be able to get guns, even if they are illegal.

Show me proof that taking guns away will help stop crime.

What are the advantages?

Hunting
Skeet Shooting
Trap Shooting (same general concept as Skeet, though)
An overall feeling of safety
The ability to defend yourself in extreme (but unlikely) situations

And the list goes on and on.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

@Bob saget.

Having a gun could make things as criminals who are prepared to kill but rather wouldn't bother are put into a position where killing the person reaching for their own gun is necessary.

As a general point on how much safer guns make you, or don't, Major Malik Nadal Hasan killed 13 people in a US army base, where plenty of people are higher skilled with weapons and guns aren't exactly rare. However, because one side of the fight was not expecting the attack (as in most self defence situations) and the other wasn't.

This is where common sense comes into play, the average person wouldn't pull out their gun if someone is pointing at them. They'll wait, until the person is more vulnerable or distracted to shoot.

The element of surprise is deadly. But numbers are deadlier. Imagine how many more people would of been killed if the rest of the population in the army base didn't have any weapons.

In both scenarios numbers are a huge factor. If the gun laws weren't that strict and more people had guns, the power would shift to the good guys. Like I said earlier most people are of good temperment and won't go around shooting people for any reason other than self-defense. So if someone dared try to rob, hurt, or **** a law abiding citizen; they'd think twice if there's a good chance the person and others around him/her could be holding a gun.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I'm pretty sure the situation is dire enough that 4/5 votes. And do you have any proof that American poloticians are polarized?

Follow this ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ ) website for about a month and I think you will be convinced that american politics is polarized.

I don't see how this would stop it.

people are normally physiologically more attached to what they see as original and special as opposed to non-original/ added on. I think it would only be a minor factor but makes it a little harder to convince a 80% majority.

Edit: how do I do that cool thing where you make just the word link to a websight with out the whole url having to be posted it is really neat and I wish to learn how.

 

[Sieguest]

Edit: how do I do that cool thing where you make just the word link to a websight with out the whole url having to be posted it is really neat and I wish to learn how.

Type the word you want the link to be in.

Copy the link.

Highlight the word you want the link to go in, then click the "insert link" button. (It looks like the planet earth with a little chain link on it). Paste the link into there and click OK. That should work.

While you're still on the screen where you type your post it should look like [ URL="*link is here*"]*your word here*[/URL ] without the spaces I put between the bracket and "URL".

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Thanks I appreciate it!

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

How is the situation dire? Criminals will always be able to get guns, even if they are illegal.

Show me proof that they can.

Show me proof that taking guns away will help stop crime.

Aren't most crime committed with guns? By taking guns away, those crimes could stop.

Hunting
Skeet Shooting
Trap Shooting (same general concept as Skeet, though)

Guns could be allowed for these things, in addition to people like the police.

An overall feeling of safety
The ability to defend yourself in extreme (but unlikely) situations

And the list goes on and on.

Tell me, how many people do you actually know that have a gun, ready to be used?

 

[gm jack]

This is where common sense comes into play, the average person wouldn't pull out their gun if someone is pointing at them. They'll wait, until the person is more vulnerable or distracted to shoot.

The element of surprise is deadly. But numbers are deadlier. Imagine how many more people would of been killed if the rest of the population in the army base didn't have any weapons.

In both scenarios numbers are a huge factor. If the gun laws weren't that strict and more people had guns, the power would shift to the good guys. Like I said earlier most people are of good temperment and won't go around shooting people for any reason other than self-defense. So if someone dared try to rob, hurt, or **** a law abiding citizen; they'd think twice if there's a good chance the person and others around him/her could be holding a gun.

Actually, it was the police that shot him in the end. The army base went on lockdown.

Show me proof that they can.

The UK. We still have a bit of gun crime, noticably with handguns which are completely illegal.

Aren't most crime committed with guns? By taking guns away, those crimes could stop.

People can still use other weapons, such as knives. Quite frankly, a lot of drime doesn't need guns to take place. However, by making it harder to get hold of guns, it will reduce the number of people able to commit crimes with guns, so reducing their incidence.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

The UK. We still have a bit of gun crime, noticably with handguns which are completely illegal.

Was there a drop in crime once guns became illegal?

People can still use other weapons, such as knives. Quite frankly, a lot of drime doesn't need guns to take place. However, by making it harder to get hold of guns, it will reduce the number of people able to commit crimes with guns, so reducing their incidence.

Guns are much more efficient than a knife. While it is possible to avoid a stab, it is much harder to dodge bullets. In addition, a sniper's way of killing can be used only with a gun.

 

[Lore]

Show me proof that they can.

I am unable to get proof because of the fact that guns haven't been banned yet. It's just common sense, really.

If guns are banned, then all guns aren't going to instantly disappear. People will hide their guns in closets, sell them on the black market, give them away, or do any number of things with the guns they still have.

Guns will still be there, and criminals will still be able to get them.

Besides that, there will probably be a black market for the production, selling, and trading of guns. In order to realize that, all you have to do is think about.

Aren't most crime committed with guns? By taking guns away, those crimes could stop.

Taking guns away will stop gun crime, but they won't stop crime. People can, have, will, and still use knives, etc to commit crimes.

Besides that, people will still be able to get guns because of what I said earlier in this post.

Guns could be allowed for these things, in addition to people like the police.

If they are allowed for anything at all, then it will be extremely easy for criminals to get guns.

Look at Columbine. The killers bought their guns with the excuse that they were going to use them for "hunting," and look how that turned out.

If you're going to ban guns, then it's all or nothing.

Tell me, how many people do you actually know that have a gun, ready to be used?

I live in Southern Georgia. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

Guns are much more efficient than a knife. While it is possible to avoid a stab, it is much harder to dodge bullets.

It isn't like wars were fought for centuries with swords. I mean, who would believe silly stories about ridiculously preposterous events like the Crusades?

In addition, a sniper's way of killing can be used only with a gun.

A crossbow and a regular bow with arrows would like to disagree.

 

[gm jack]

Was there a drop in crime once guns became illegal?

They have been illegal since the early 20th century. Quite frankly, I doubt there are any decent statistics that could be compared.

However, the UK and USA are fairly similar countries for the most part. The USA has around a 25 times higher murder rate with guns then the UK, but the US has always had a higher murder rate, so not much is said. And Switzerland has pretty much everyone owning military rifles. However, as they all have to do military service, they seem to respect the weapons much more, so have virtually no gun crime.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

Essentially, my views are that you need either huge amounts of training for the weapons, or to restrict them. Now, either way, weapons are going to get into the wrong hands. If they are illegal, there will be a black market, and despite all training, there will be some people who use them for crime.

However, either situation is better than the US at the moment where pretty much anyone can get a hugely dangerous weapon with very little training and/or reason to own it.

Guns are much more efficient than a knife. While it is possible to avoid a stab, it is much harder to dodge bullets. In addition, a sniper's way of killing can be used only with a gun.

If someone grabs you in an alley and puts a knife to my throat, my first thought is not going to be "at least it isn't a gun". The difference having guns mostly illegal makes is that there are less people who can commit crimes with them, as well as making carrying one around very risky, so reducing the number of changes people have to use them for crime.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

A crossbow and a regular bow with arrows would like to disagree.

Guns are much more efficient than a knife. While it is possible to avoid a stab, it is much harder to dodge bullets. In addition, a sniper's way of killing can be used only with a gun.

I am so sorry, as I do historical weapons research as a small pass time I just can not pass up an argument about weapon effectiveness.

Crossbow is superior to a Regular bow and can still be used as an assassination tool today if you wish to kill silently/effectively and you do not have a gun for some reason. Back in its time it was so effective It was even banned by the pope! The only real disadvantageous part of it is size and ammo. (Learned on a news story on 2008 olimpics that it is illegal to carry your crossbow into certian places in china because I totally carry my crossbow in public. I think of it as more of home protection.)

For Some quick Crossbow Facts click here.

Now there are many variations of swords my personal favorite is the katana but there is a lot more like the broadsword, claymore, rapier, long sword, short sword, wakizashi, scimitar and more. Anyway I could go on for a good long time but if you wish to know how to use a sword get The Book of five Rings It is a great book of classic samurai sword strategy and can be used for other weapons as well. Any way for the swords info I reference History Channel and The Book of Five Rings. Also In my opinion Katana > all other sword based weapons (however, the claymore comes close.)

To the point close range a Sword is much more an effective killer but the gun has range and that is its ultimate advantage.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

We could argue on forever on the specifics of this example, which is why I brought it up.

Before you use something as an example, think about what people can find wrong with it. In this case, you have no way to prove whether the gun would help or not, etc etc.

An example where a gun was actually used would have helped you out a lot more. Try to find an example that can help your case the most, not an example that will only slightly help it.

Sorry for the late reply.

perfect example right here: http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=7565465

 

[Aesir]

perfect example right here: http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=7565465

single stories don't prove much of anything, generally speaking though I don't really see a point in not allowing carry ons as long as it's not handled in an irresponsible way. (IE allowing them on college campuses, or saying a private establishment can't ban them like a store for instance.)

Generally speaking though gun control laws are not there to stop law abiding citizens from acquiring guns. Granted it's harder for them to acquire them easily which is the point of the laws anyway. If anyone can just get a gun why not? The reason why we have a gun/crime issue is because each state is different, California might have some of the most restricting gun laws in the country, but what does it matter when I can just jump across state lines and not have to deal with the restrictions California has?

A National standard on gun control should have been adopted, and if states wanted to do more more power to them, but each state should have a reasonable threshold. As it stands right now there the national standard doesn't do much.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

He asked for an example and I gave him an example. I can give more but he asked for AN example.

 

[Aesir]

He asked for an example and I gave him an example. I can give more but he asked for AN example.

And I'm saying it's circumstantial evidence. Whether or not more guns = less crime is a debatable issue, often times the statistics that show a correlation one way or another have other variables that effect crime.

 

[Maniclysane]

Nobody needs to defend themselves from 50 yards away. There's a reason things like tasers, pepper spray, and knives are used for self defense. There are so many occurrences where guns kill by accident, and they're so unsafe for anyone to carry.

Making guns illegal won't stop gun related crime, nothing will, but gun related deaths will drop dramatically if they're made illegal.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

Manic, do you have stats to back up your claim?

 

[Maniclysane]

What kind of stats are you asking for?

http://www.gun-control-network.org/IN1209.htm

Those are numerous accidental gun related deaths. That doesn't even scratch the surface of deaths caused by kids getting ahold of their parents gun, drunk people playing with firearms, etc.

They're not all deaths btw.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/chrissy-steltz-blinded-gunshot-prosthetic-face/story?id=11162243

Another gun related accident that just came to mind.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

What about finding the crime rate of somewhere guns are illegal, and comparing that with a similar place guns are legal? If your assumption is correct, there should be a gap the size of the Grand Canyon between the two crime rates.

 

[Lore]

He asked for an example and I gave him an example. I can give more but he asked for AN example.

Good job rising up to my little challenge! Just keep up the good work, and you'll soon be a debater.

What kind of stats are you asking for?

http://www.gun-control-network.org/IN1209.htm

Those are numerous accidental gun related deaths. That doesn't even scratch the surface of deaths caused by kids getting ahold of their parents gun, drunk people playing with firearms, etc.

They're not all deaths btw.

-insert link about car-related deaths here-

There are numerous accidental car related deaths. That doesn't even scratch the surface of deaths caused by kids driving their parent's car, drunk people driving, etc.

They're not all deaths btw.

Making cars illegal won't stop car related crime, nothing will, but car related deaths will drop dramatically if cars are made illegal.

 

[Sucumbio]

Gunbump

No okay but to be serious this particular debate thread ran into circular reasoning a bit, as well as defeatism.

SO maybe today's DH members can take a crack at it and do better.

The real issues are this:

1.) What is Gun Control? Is it a law that prohibits or restricts the citizen in terms of whether or not they can own a gun? Or is it a law that prohibits manufacturers or retailers from selling guns to American citizens? Or it is both?? Or neither? Also remember that NRA lobbyists et al try very hard to make sure everyone in America -can- own a firearm (and some want you to too...)

2.) Is it necessary at all? Should the existence of a black market nullify the need for legislation for everyday citizens?

3.) What if we were to emulate the practices of another country, could that work? True America is unique, especially in mentality, but does this preclude our nation adopting a similar policy to say, the UK?

 

[FalKoopa]

That was quite a bump. I did a bit of reading up on Gun Control laws in the US as well as other countries.

1. Gun Control, imo, should aim to restrict or regulate whether ordinary citizens are allowed to own firearms or not. The retailer doesn't have much to do with it. Just that they cannot sell weapons to people not having the required permit.

2. I believe yes. Even if it isn't particularly effective in stopping the black market sale of guns, it still acts a deterrent for ordinary people. Gun related crimes are generally lower in countries where gun laws are stringent.

3. It's a bit hard to comment on this one.

 

[_Magus_]

Here's my humble take:

Outlawing guns, especially assault rifles, will not help gun violence. Assault rifles account for less than 1% of gun violence annually. But regardless, killing people is illegal. Criminals are already breaking the law. What's to keep them from breaking another one to get the weapon? Somebody who's going to go to great lengths to plan a murder would have the will to pursue the black market. The only thing that will change is that we won't be able to defend ourselves from these criminals.

 

[Tsukihi Araragi]

Gun control doesn't work, my state has the strictest gun laws in the nation and it's far from the safest state. (And trust me, I plan on leaving to another state ASAP.) If you place more gun restrictions you're just restricting law abiding citizens (AKA good people) from buying them. Criminals on the other hand won't care, they'll find something off the black market. Politicians who push for more gun control are usually ignorant about guns, why would you want to have people make laws about things they don't know about?

EDIT: Violent crime peaked in America in 1990 and has been declining ever since.

 

[ELRACj]

Gun laws will vary from state to state. It is the the state's responsibility to regulate its own gun laws because of what the political leaders (usually with or should be the same opinion of the a majority of that state's population) of said state believe it should be.

If that isn't quite the necessary response because the question is more of that states should have similar restrictions then maybe this would be more appropriate. Due to the many different environments the US has it is necessary to have laws that meet those needs. Now I cannot argue whether or not a certain state needs harsher restrictions than another, but I will argue that it makes sense to have differing restrictions.

For instance, lets say there are concerns with people using hammers to break people's mailboxes in some northern states. So a national law is made keeping all hammers out of sight. Well let say some state in the south is known to have shelf making contests (requires hammers). And this same state has a very, very low mail box smashing rate. Would it make sense to apply this rule to the whole of the country when the issue is located in a certain area? my guess would be no but everyone is different.

Sorry for the dumb example but i thought it would be more fun to do something different than criminals vs hunters/gun collectors.

Let it be known that i have never shot a gun in my life and do not own one. I am also trying not to be biased but there is always a little bit of bias some where in somebody. (hopefully this statement isn't bias by me being bias 0.0 mind blown).

 

[_Magus_]

Gun laws will vary from state to state. It is the the state's responsibility to regulate its own gun laws because of what the political leaders (usually with or should be the same opinion of the a majority of that state's population) of said state believe it should be.

If that isn't quite the necessary response because the question is more of that states should have similar restrictions then maybe this would be more appropriate. Due to the many different environments the US has it is necessary to have laws that meet those needs. Now I cannot argue whether or not a certain state needs harsher restrictions than another, but I will argue that it makes sense to have differing restrictions.

For instance, lets say there are concerns with people using hammers to break people's mailboxes in some northern states. So a national law is made keeping all hammers out of sight. Well let say some state in the south is known to have shelf making contests (requires hammers). And this same state has a very, very low mail box smashing rate. Would it make sense to apply this rule to the whole of the country when the issue is located in a certain area? my guess would be no but everyone is different.

Sorry for the dumb example but i thought it would be more fun to do something different than criminals vs hunters/gun collectors.

Let it be known that i have never shot a gun in my life and do not own one. I am also trying not to be biased but there is always a little bit of bias some where in somebody. (hopefully this statement isn't bias by me being bias 0.0 mind blown).

No, the example works. lol

I think it should be up to the state as well, but I also think the real issue here is that people think gun control will actually stop gun violence. It wouldn't, it would only deter someone who didn't know what they were doing at the cost of lessening our ability to defend ourselves (presumably from the same criminals we're trying to stop with gun control )

 

[AirFair]

Gun Laws won't help gun control very much, because evil people would break laws anyway if they plan to do bad things like murder or assault someone. They should vary from state to state based on crime rate and what they use it for ( similar to what @ ELRACj said above. I think that a concealed handgun could be carried around with proper licensing, but other than that, I don't believe they are necessary to carry around everywhere.

 

[Chompjil]

Yes, pretty much, many crazed shooters get guns illegally, either stealing them or on the black-market, things we can't control as well, even if we ban guns entirely, let people carry a pistol, I mean not everyone's going to have it, giving the right to only police officers or the military would be breaking our 2nd amendment anyways

 

[Sucumbio]

... giving the right to only police officers or the military would be breaking our 2nd amendment anyways

Is this necessarily bad?

 

[Chompjil]

Is this necessarily bad?

So are you saying for the taking of guns to citizens and then distribution to law enforcement or what,

 

[Sucumbio]

What i am asking is whether or not you think it is a bad idea to amend the Constitution to either eliminate the 2nd amendment or greatly revamp it . simply stating that a course of action would not work because it would violate the Constitution is incredulous because he constitution is not written in stone so to speak. It can be changed. If any of the bill of rights are outdated its the 2nd amendment. We don't need to maintain militias we have the National Guard. People don't NEED guns. They want them but it should be a privilege not a right.

 

[Sehnsucht]

What i am asking is whether or not you think it is a bad idea to amend the Constitution to either eliminate the 2nd amendment or greatly revamp it . simply stating that a course of action would not work because it would violate the Constitution is incredulous because he constitution is not written in stone so to speak. It can be changed. If any of the bill of rights are outdated its the 2nd amendment. We don't need to maintain militias we have the National Guard. People don't NEED guns. They want them but it should be a privilege not a right.

As a Canadian, I'd say that people should be able to procure firearms. But ideally, such people would only procure firearms for sound or legitimate reasons, such as for self-defense contingencies (e.g. keeping a pistol in your house, just in case), for sport and leisure (e.g. hunting, marksmanship, etc.), and so forth. Even being an enthusiast of firearms is fine (though that would fall into sport and leisure, I'd expect).

Gun regulation seems to me a preventative measure. The point of screening people through licenses and permits is to weed out people who can actually handle firearms and prevent misuse, and those who may not have the competencies for safe use and/or have malevolent intent.

I mean, I could argue that I should be allowed to openly carry a morningstar in public spaces. If I endanger or harm anyone due to turning around too fast, the fault is of course on me. But wouldn't it be wiser to just not carry something so dangerous as a morningstar in public in the first place, unless I had a good, legitimate reason for doing so? A permit or license for morningstar lugging would prove my legitimate intent on legal grounds, more than my word alone could (since I could just lie when asked, saying I'm carrying for self-defense purposes when I actually intend on thwacking my employer).

Keeping a morningstar at home or in a private space should be permissible without the need for permits or licenses, though. Or katanas. Maybe some tonfas. That'd be cool.

Applying this to gun ownership seems equally sensible. Have retailers sell firearms, and require the pursuit of licensing and/or permits to carry firearms in all public spaces, as a legally-imposed preventative measure against their use. Obviously, ne'er-do-wells may carry concealed weapons regardless, but they do today anyway. But regulating firearms may serve to make their acquisition more difficult. Then again, you have illegal means of acquisition, like black markets and smuggling, but that seems less grounds to have zero gun regulation, and more grounds to focus on dismantling illegal distribution rings (since goons can't get guns if there's no underground distribution ring).

You perhaps could try applying this rationale to all weapons -- knives, mace and pepper spray, personal tasers, etc. I don't think the latter two need regulation, since they're expressly self-defense tools. As for knives, it depends; a Swiss army knife has practical uses, though carrying a switchblade or hunting knife in public can be suspicious, since one wonders what use the carrier has for such blades. They could invoke self-defense, but they could conceal their true malicious intent.

Maybe it's a matter of assuming good faith. But then again, faith is violated at the first transgression, and doesn't work well as a deterrent or a preventative measure.

It does remain that whatever one thinks of knives and other minor weapons, guns are clearly a step up in potential risk and danger, since they can cause much more damage in a much briefer timeframe than knives or other things. But that just speaks to the rationale of regulation -- the more dangerous the weapon, the more sound and rational the justification needs to be for you to own it and/or carry them in public, whether openly or discreetly, and the regulation via permits and licenses should reflect as much.

Now to await for the actual statistics to contradict everything I've just said above. 8D

 

[Chinaux]

Guns are the last line of defense to a tyrannical government. There's a reason why it's in the Bill of Rights.

Now should we have SMG full auto machine spaghetti shooting guns accessible to the public? Not so much.

Personally, while I don't care to own a gun, I do believe that people should be able to have access to them.