Gun laws in the United States

[echo1 0]

But what can they prevent? I think your asking extremely much from the government here.

Easy and legitimate access.

Sure, some (maybe even a lot) will be able to get their hands on them through the black market. But it's like anything - should we not illegalize cocaine because people can still get their hands on it?

[sparks50 0]

The best Federal Government evidence has concluded that there is no way to stop, or even greatly reduce, either production of drugs in foreign countries or the smuggling of drugs into the US.

What does that say about how effective governments are at stopping weapons at the border?

The truth is that if the population of certain continental European countries and the UK really wanted weapons, they would get it without any problem from the law.

should we not illegalize cocaine because people can still get their hands on it?

Not if it causes more harm than it does good through a legal, controlled market. But thats another discussion.

Edited July 20, 2010 by sparks50

[ProfTournesol 956]

No it isn't. Read some reports of other cases that aren't the incredibly tiny interesting percent that the media focuses on,

and you'll realize that real life is not an Agatha Christie novel.

Ok so let's state it like this :

In the United States, a quarter of commercial robberies are committed with guns. Robberies committed with guns are three times as likely to result in fatalities compared with robberies where other weapons were used, with similar patterns in cases of family violence. Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesizes that if guns were less available, criminals may likely commit the crime anyway but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not overall robbery rates. A significant number of homicides result as a by-product of another violent crime which escalates, with the offender going into the crime without a clear or sustained intent to kill or be killed. Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are also comparable to other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, notwithstanding the much lower levels of gun ownership in those countries.

Source.

So that's simple : more firearms easily available = more dead with them. Bad guys or "good" guys.

And of course it's possible to find firearms in our more restrictive countries, but it's still difficult and severely punished, so it's (still) rare, so ordinary citizens (still) don't have to get firearms to defend themselves, etc. That's simply a question of civilization.

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

[st_dux 26]

As has nearly ever non-communist state in the western world. Consider yourself thankful to be living in America where the gun control laws are weak by comparison.

Most non-communist states in the Western world have stricter gun control regulations than the United States, but their regulations are not nearly as strict as the totalitarian states of yesteryear, where guns were essentially forbidden. Also, there are several examples of Western states that actually have less gun control than the United States, for example, Switzerland. You will find an assault rifle in nearly every Swiss residence. And guess what? Switzerland is not a warzone. In fact, it has an extraordinarily low rate of violent crime compared to other European nations. It's funny how people think twice about robbing their local liquor store when they know that the owner probably has an SG 550 in the back.

So now pretty much anyone who supports stricter gun control laws is a Nazi or a commie? I'll happily be called a Nazi or a Commie if it means that my community is safer. Ya know how hard it is for gang members to get their hands on high powered weaponry thanks to gun control? They're going around with small cailber pistols and knives mainly and maybe in one sect there is either 1 sawed off shotgun or 1 semi-auto rifle converted to full auto. That right there is a lot better than how it was in the 80s and 90s before gun control got a lot stricter. True power is not gained through the barrel of a gun.

And clinging to idiotic idea of everyone having their own personal armory full of weapons meant for war will make the world a safer place does nothing except turn what freedom we have into total anarchy or worst yet cops will be more military like to combat the rapid rise in gun related violence. Do you want your hometown to start looking like a war zone? I sure don't.

- No, not everyone who supports stricter gun control is a Nazi or commie. That is why I specifically said in my last post that while totalitarian dictators tend to have strict gun control, the reverse is not necessarily true, i.e., having strict gun control does not automatically make a state totalitarian. Please take the time to read what you are responding to completely.

- Criminals tend to use concealed weapons more often then full-scale assault rifles because they are far more practical in 99% of the situations they encounter. This has nothing to do with the availability of guns or the effectiveness of gun control; if someone wants to get their hands on an AK-47, it's really not that difficult to get one illegally if he or she has the money. It's just like heroin or anything else that the government attempts to ban: The ban doesn't work. As long as there is a demand for something, there will be a supply. Always.

- Saying something like "true power is not gained through the barrel of a gun" shows just how naive you are. There is no power more direct or indisputable than the power of potential violence. At the end of the day, all governments maintain their power through this potential, i.e., through force.

- Where are you getting this personal armory thing from? No one is saying that average people should be maintaining entire armories of military-grade weaponry, but the basic freedom of keeping and bearing arms is important.

- Your contention that freer gun laws would lead to rising gun violence that would eventually escalate into a full-scale warzone is plainly ridiculous. I don't know where people get the idea that guns create violence, but they don't. Guns are tools used by people who create violence, and making guns available doesn't turn ordinary people into mass murderers. Moreover, making guns unavailable doesn't turn mass murderers into good citizens. Violence has been around since before guns even existed, and as stated earlier, banning guns doesn't make them truly unavailable. The vast majority (over 90%) of gun crime in the world is committed using weapons that were obtained illegally. Gun control laws should have theoretically prevented these criminals from having a firearm in all of these cases, yet they obtained one and the crimes were carried out anyway. How is more gun control legislation going to be effective when the current legislation is largely ignored by criminals? Gun control legislation just doesn't make any sense as a practical safety measure, regardless of much you'd like it to in your idealized world. People are safer and violent crime rates are lower when there is less gun control, as the number of criminals in a given area is no different, but the freedom for law-abiding citizens to own a gun creates a real deterrent for crime.

Edited July 20, 2010 by ST_Dux

[ProfTournesol 956]

Most non-communist states in the Western world

Which are the communist states in western world ? Cuba ?

[maturin 12]

The truth is that if the population of certain continental European countries and the UK really wanted weapons, they would get it without any problem from the law.

True, but a firearm is not a drug. It is not a consumable, it is a tool that requires maintenance and support. If you banned guns, criminals would still get guns and commit crimes with them. But it would be downright impossible to commit gun crime the way people do today if every weapon was illegal. In a sea of legitimate owners with a constitutional right to their weapons, it is almost impossible to enforce strict gun laws. If every sale of every cleaning kit, the possession of every bullet, was a federal offense, if every use of a gun sparked an investigation, a simple robbery would be hell to pull off. Guns may not be too hard to smuggle, but they are exceedingly hard to use, maintain and conceal without getting caught.

Of course, all this would only be relevant if the U.S. was not already full of guns, and if illegal firearms were coming in from abroad. The case is reversed, actually. People buy guns here and export them legally and illegally to the most violent places on earth. But hey, as long as AR-15s are only killing Mexican cops. And the handguns mostly kill blacks so the acceptable losses are even more acceptable to lots of people.

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

True, but a firearm is not a drug. It is not a consumable, it is a tool that requires maintenance and support. If you banned guns, criminals would still get guns and commit crimes with them. But it would be downright impossible to commit gun crime the way people do today if every weapon was illegal. In a sea of legitimate owners with a constitutional right to their weapons, it is almost impossible to enforce strict gun laws. If every sale of every cleaning kit, the possession of every bullet, was a federal offense, if every use of a gun sparked an investigation, a simple robbery would be hell to pull off. Guns may not be too hard to smuggle, but they are exceedingly hard to use, maintain and conceal without getting caught.

Of course, all this would only be relevant if the U.S. was not already full of guns, and if illegal firearms were coming in from abroad. The case is reversed, actually. People buy guns here and export them legally and illegally to the most violent places on earth. But hey, as long as AR-15s are only killing Mexican cops. And the handguns mostly kill blacks so the acceptable losses are even more acceptable to lots of people.

Since we know that thousands of Mexican soldiers and officers desert the army with their weapons, why do you contend that every weapon used by the cartels is somehow purchased from the US?

[sudayev 27]

Why would a normal law abiding citizen carry a concealed pistol with silencer ?

[maturin 12]

Since we know that thousands of Mexican soldiers and officers desert the army with their weapons, why do you contend that every weapon used by the cartels is somehow purchased from the US?

Err, because I don't. The cycle of drugs for guns is well documented and reported on even by the main TV news networks.

[Baff1 0]

Why would a normal law abiding citizen carry a concealed pistol with silencer ?

It beats wearing ear defenders in public.

[ryguy 10]

And the handguns mostly kill blacks so the acceptable losses are even more acceptable to lots of people.

Wtf? So we're OK with blacks being shot, as long as they're black? Orly

and @Baff1 If you only plan on using a gun in emergencies then you don't need ear protection at all.

[/color]

[Big Mac 19]

Most non-communist states in the Western world have stricter gun control regulations than the United States, but their regulations are not nearly as strict as the totalitarian states of yesteryear, where guns were essentially forbidden. Also, there are several examples of Western states that actually have less gun control than the United States, for example, Switzerland. You will find an assault rifle in nearly every Swiss residence. And guess what? Switzerland is not a warzone. In fact, it has an extraordinarily low rate of violent crime compared to other European nations. It's funny how people think twice about robbing their local liquor store when they know that the owner probably has an SG 550 in the back.

Those 550s are nothing more than clubs since people are not allowed to have live ammo in their house.

---------- Post added at 03:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:34 PM ----------

- Saying something like "true power is not gained through the barrel of a gun" shows just how naive you are. There is no power more direct or indisputable than the power of potential violence. At the end of the day, all governments maintain their power through this potential, i.e., through force.

Oh really? Then how come some of the most power people in history gained that power more through respect than through fear?

- Your contention that freer gun laws would lead to rising gun violence that would eventually escalate into a full-scale warzone is plainly ridiculous. I don't know where people get the idea that guns create violence, but they don't. Guns are tools used by people who create violence, and making guns available doesn't turn ordinary people into mass murderers. Moreover, making guns unavailable doesn't turn mass murderers into good citizens. Violence has been around since before guns even existed, and as stated earlier, banning guns doesn't make them truly unavailable. The vast majority (over 90%) of gun crime in the world is committed using weapons that were obtained illegally. Gun control laws should have theoretically prevented these criminals from having a firearm in all of these cases, yet they obtained one and the crimes were carried out anyway. How is more gun control legislation going to be effective when the current legislation is largely ignored by criminals? Gun control legislation just doesn't make any sense as a practical safety measure, regardless of much you'd like it to in your idealized world. People are safer and violent crime rates are lower when there is less gun control, as the number of criminals in a given area is no different, but the freedom for law-abiding citizens to own a gun creates a real deterrent for crime.

Oh really? Then how come cops now have larger caliber weapons today when before they didnt? How come today we have SWAT teams when before the late 70s we didnt? Criminals and your average law abiding citizen who goes postal have bigger guns. Criminals get semi auto pistols, cops get semi-auto pistols, Criminals get Uzis, cops get MP5s, criminals get AR-15s and AKs, cops get M-16s and M-4s. Edited July 20, 2010 by Big Mac

[maturin 12]

Wtf? So we're OK with blacks being shot, as long as they're black?

Your average second amendment fan doesn't have to live with, or anywhere near, the consequences of that clause.

[sparks50 0]

Wtf? So we're OK with blacks being shot, as long as they're black? Orly

and @Baff1 If you only plan on using a gun in emergencies then you don't need ear protection at all.

He needs to practice a lot to be able to effectively use it. So he will need ear protection.

Edited July 20, 2010 by sparks50

[Deadfast 43]

Oh really? Then how come cops now have larger caliber weapons today when before they didnt? How come today we have SWAT teams when before the late 70s we didnt? Criminals and your average law abiding citizen who goes postal have bigger guns. Criminals get semi auto pistols, cops get semi-auto pistols, Criminals get Uzis, cops get MP5s, criminals get AR-15s and AKs, cops get M-16s and M-4s.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but firearms ownership limitations (to whatever extend) have been enforced after the '70s. The said limitations make it harder for people to obtain guns, hence limiting the number of weapons owned.

Following that logic there would be more guns in the '70s and yet you didn't need SWAT as you just said. That is a bit strange, don't you think?

People don't change, there will always be this odd psycho who decides to go on a suicide murder rampage. Gun is just a convenient tool he can use to reach his sick goal. Take it away and he can use a knife instead. Take that away and can beat people to death. If there is the desire to kill a person will always find the needs. It has always been like this and always will be. The only difference is today's story-hungry media will plaster their faces all over their "special investigative reports" like they're some bloody martyrs. Never mind it could drive some other attention-needy sod to try to kill his way to fame. But hey, bad news is good news, right?

Edited July 20, 2010 by Deadfast

[Big Mac 19]

He needs to practice a lot to be able to effectively use it. So he will need ear protection.

Yea I so would tell someone who's about to car jack me "Hold a sec lemme get my ear plugs before I shoot you." lol

---------- Post added at 04:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:27 PM ----------

Correct me if I'm wrong, but firearms ownership limitations (to whatever extend) have been enforced after the '70s. The said limitations make it harder for people to obtain guns, hence limiting the number of weapons owned.

Following that logic there would be more guns in the '70s and yet you didn't need SWAT as you just said. That is a bit strange, don't you think?

Actually in the 20s it was legal to own a tommy gun before bank robbers started using them then they enforced a ban on civilian sales of tommy guns and that combined with superb law enforcement by the FBI stamped out a lot of crime involving the use of military grade weapons

People don't change, there will always be this odd psycho who decides to go on a suicide murder rampage. Gun is just a convenient tool he can use to reach his sick goal. Take it away and he can use a knife instead. Take that away and can beat people to death. If there is the desire to kill a person will always find the needs. It has always been like this and always will be. The only difference is today's story-hungry media will plaster their faces all over their "special investigative reports" like they're some bloody martyrs. Never mind it could drive some other attention-needy sod to try to kill his way to fame. But hey, bad news is good news, right?

Well that is true people don't change, but if I was a cop or Joe Blow walking down the street and some guy started going postal, I'd much rather him go postal with a shotgun or pistol rather than a AK or AR-15. I'm not opposed to people having guns (I've said this God knows how many times already.) I'm opposed to people having military grade weaponry when their only reason for having them in "Recreation" If you are not Law Enforcement or military you have no right to own military grade weaponry.

I can promise you that if the unthinkable happens and America is invaded or Zombies take over the Earth then I will be one of the first to trade my 3 guns in for a assault rifle.

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

Err, because I don't. The cycle of drugs for guns is well documented and reported on even by the main TV news networks.

I don't watch TV, so I'm really not sure what you're being indoctrinated with.

[Second 0]

Those 550s are nothing more than clubs since people are not allowed to have live ammo in their house.

And thousands of them have turned missing. Guns i mean.

Oh really? Then how come some of the most power people in history gained that power more through respect than through fear?

Like whom? Machiavelli would not agree with you. And then again respect is gained by superior firepower as well. :D

Modern nations are established on principle that they have the monopoly of violence. Is it has been in older times aswell, but back then it wasn't nation but vassals of kings and nobility and all that who held title to use violence. That is why modern nations have police, armed forces, legal institutions. That is what makes any kind of leader an actual leader instead of being some comical character which rival squashes under his heel.

Overthrowing governments has always build on this princible, maintaining governments is based on this principle as well. It might not show so clearly in normally working society, but when that society gets hit by crisis things change. And soon government and rebels might force it's regulations to citizens by muzzle of barrel, buttstocks and bayonets... Boot to teeth as well.

Surely charisma is good thing, but charisma backed up by serious firepower is even better.

---------- Post added at 09:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:23 PM ----------

People don't change, there will always be this odd psycho who decides to go on a suicide murder rampage. Gun is just a convenient tool he can use to reach his sick goal. Take it away and he can use a knife instead. Take that away and can beat people to death. If there is the desire to kill a person will always find the needs. It has always been like this and always will be.

Ever tried to kill human bare handed eh? I don't have personal experience with humans but i'm pretty sure it will be harder. I remember my first pigeon i was supposed to finish with nice and simple whack to head. Bugger needed several whacks as i wasn't "totally myself". Shooting is way easier. Only minority of crimes with death are committed by motives and prepartions to kill something, most often it happens by accident when things go bad.

ProfTournesol even gave source to back this up. Crime committed with gun is prone to go fatal for someone much more likely than without. Naturally statistics can be just one form of lie, but then again some guide lines are needed to back up arguments.

[sparks50 0]

Yea I so would tell someone who's about to car jack me "Hold a sec lemme get my ear plugs before I shoot you." lol

Most people practice by shooting paper, but whatever works for you I guess:rolleyes:

[HyperU2 11]

Your average second amendment fan doesn't have to live with, or anywhere near, the consequences of that clause.

My gun rights have nothing to do with blacks slaughtering themselves. But yes, 8% of our population does do 50% of our murdering. I'd sort of like them to stop so we stop taking so much crap over guns.

[Deadfast 43]

Ever tried to kill human bare handed eh?

I never said bare handed, I said beat to death. That can involve blunt objects such as pipes, stones, etc.

To be honest this is starting to feel a bit weird of a subject so I'll rather drop it.

[ryguy 10]

Most people practice by shooting paper, but whatever works for you I guess:rolleyes:

He said "it's better than wearing ear protection in public" so I said "just don't wear ear protection", not "don't practice with ear protection". The fact that you are pointing out very minute details is very pointless, as if you can't admit to anything anybody is saying so that you are constantly right.

[Big Mac 19]

Most people practice by shooting paper, but whatever works for you I guess:rolleyes:

I screwed up on the quote there,lol. I meant for it to be quoted to this.

@Baff1 If you only plan on using a gun in emergencies then you don't need ear protection at all.

[st_dux 26]

@Big Mac:

It's becoming increasingly apparent to me that you live in a fantasy land where "respect" holds more power than violence, law enforcement is infallible, and people tend to get what they deserve in life. While I imagine it's very nice to live in such a world, it sadly bears no resemblance to the real one.

You keep talking about gun control like it just works. Despite my evidence to the contrary (i.e., over 90% of gun crime being committed with illegally obtained weapons), you're happy to keep on assuming that gun regulations will make it difficult for criminals to obtain them. They don't. If they did, then 90% of gun-related crime would have never happened; it would have been stopped by the gun control regulations that were instead ignored. Gun control can make the price of weapons higher (and the non-taxable profits of black market arms dealers greater), but that won't stop people from getting them.

As far as military-grade weaponry goes, this isn't really much of a criminal issue, anyway. As you've said in this thread, crime is rarely carried out using such weapons, and as I explained in my last post, this is because it's not very practical to try to rob a convenience store or mug someone with an assault rifle. You don't need something that powerful to get the job done, and it adds the unnecessary obstacle of finding a way to walk around on the street without people noticing the fact that you're carrying a plainly visible rifle. A handgun just makes more sense in 99% of cases, and that is why criminals prefer them. It's not because they're legal; usually, it's not legal for these kinds of people (i.e., felons) to buy handguns. They do so anyway, illegally, ignoring gun control completely. Again, I can't stress enough how important it is to realize that crimes are rarely committed with legally-obtained firearms; they are almost always committed with firearms that were bought on the black market, generally by people who would never be allowed to purchase them legally, so gun control isn't doing anything.

With regard to your final point, saying you'd rather have someone go postal with a pistol or shotgun than with an assault rifle is kind of like saying you'd rather drown than be burned alive. Both are really terrible, extremely undesirable things, and I don't think that looking back at a mass shooting and thinking, "Well, at least he didn't have an assault rifle," really offers any silver lining to the situation. An assault rifle may make it a bit more difficult for the police to deal with (when they eventually arrive), but it's not like the death count is going to be much higher than it would be with a shotgun. When you're in a place like a school where you know for sure that every single person you see is completely defenseless, it's really easy (technically speaking -- I'm not considering the fact that you need to be a complete psychopath to even consider doing something like this) to just walk around killing people with any sort of firearm. Given enough ammo and time, you could finish off quite a few helpless victims.

You know what would really protect people from mass shootings? Getting rid of the inane "gun-free zone" doctrine that makes it illegal for anyone to carry a firearm in places like schools (hell of a lot of good that has done for every school shooting ever -- didn't the mass murderers see the "this is a gun-free zone" sign?). If it were allowed, then the non-psychopathic types who choose to arm themselves would have the opportunity to defend themselves and others well before the police even arrive at the scene. And what's more, a would-be school shooter might even think twice now that he can't be sure that everyone's so defenseless anymore. Imagine.

Edited July 21, 2010 by ST_Dux