Guns. Good or Bad?

[Varku]

I don't like how guns are handeled in the usa.
I'm somewhat okay to allow people to use guns for sport/hunting.
But I'm not okay to give out guns for "selfdefence" or without a purpose at all.

If it comes to violence esp violencew with potential lethal force I want to see nobody but the gouverment/police in control of that force.
If you need a possible lethal weapon to defend yourself/your property there is something wrong with your enviroment.

But I also understand that banning weapons will be a very hard task for the USA and I don't think it will happen in the next 20 Years.

PS:
Are there restrictions in USA like : You need to store ammo and the weapon apart from each other and both need to be contained in a special designed container?
(Restrictions like we have in Germany)

 

[Deroth]

I don't like how guns are handeled in the usa.
I'm somewhat okay to allow people to use guns for sport/hunting.
But I'm not okay to give out guns for "selfdefence" or without a purpose at all.

If it comes to violence esp violencew with potential lethal force I want to see nobody but the gouverment/police in control of that force.
If you need a possible lethal weapon to defend yourself/your property there is something wrong with your enviroment.

But I also understand that banning weapons will be a very hard task for the USA and I don't think it will happen in the next 20 Years.

PS:
Are there restrictions in USA like : You need to store ammo and the weapon apart from each other and both need to be contained in a special designed container?
(Restrictions like we have in Germany)

Depends on the exact scenario and which State, but for many those are the rules for those that do not have a concealed carry permit, and the NRA even recommends it (they just don't want the federal government passing a law stating as such as it opens the door to things like search and seizure without a warrant and putting more power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.)

What you're recommending would require more police to be employed when we're already having issues with understaffed and poorly trained law enforcement agencies due to lack of funding and many even calling out for the elimination of police departments altogether (these are also frequently the same people calling out for gun bans and dismantling of the military.)

 

[Bambooza]

In response to your question: guns are irrelevant. It's people that are shitty. I could be perfectly happy in a world without guns. However, if I lived in such a place, I would have to carry a sword or bow or whatever the most effective killing tool my wonderful gunless world had to offer, since said world would still be full of the same shitty people who have never failed to find a reason to hurt each other with little or no pretense.

Truth.

 

[Ezz]

What you're recommending would require more police to be employed when we're already having issues with understaffed and poorly trained law enforcement agencies due to lack of funding and many even calling out for the elimination of police departments altogether (these are also frequently the same people calling out for gun bans and dismantling of the military.)

So don't enforce a law that could improve safety because you don't have enough money for the police? If that's what you meant thats a strange way to "justify" not passing such a law. But I am pretty sure i am misunderstanding that.

And the statement that people who want to "dismantle" the military and want bans on guns also want to shut down the Executive (at least frequently as you said) is hard to believe.

As someone from the EU it is hard to understand the justification of allowing automatic rifles. It's not like you need those to "protect" your family. People who get those get them because they want them, not because they need them. I can't think of a reason why you would need one.

I also see a lot of people say guns are "just tools". The person counts. Bullshit. A gun is a tool invented to kill. There is no other reason for a gun but to kill. So don't treat it like any other tool.

Also I see the argument that you need a weapon to protect yourself. MikeNificent said if not guns he would need to carry a sword or what ever. Not sure if he is sincere but if he is: what kind of place is it you live in? How fucked up can it be? Also, if people in the states would carry swords and not machine guns at least you wouldn't have someone kill nearly 60 people and wound hundreds. So maybe you should carry swords...

If you think a gun reform would not help take a look at Australia who passed laws and did not have a mass shooting since. Read here.

I am also sure that police killings will go down. At the moment policemen have to assume that the person they stopped has a gun on themselves which results in chaos and ends with a deadly shot too often.

 

[Deroth]

Not just anyone can purchase an automatic rifle in the USA. You should look at the National Firearms Act to understand just how expensive, time consuming, problematic, and heavily regulated that process is.

A little back story on the history of the NRA for context:
At the end of the Civil War a couple northern Republican politicians saw just how angry and desperate southern Democrats were getting and suspected they were going to soon use violence to punish the recently freed slaves. Since the southern Democrats still controlled the State and local governments the odds of law enforcement helping the recently freed slaves instead of further victimizing them was very low.
So they found an extremely popular (though arguably less effective militarily) Officer to prop up as the leader of the brand new NRA. Their initial mission was to do everything they could to ensure freed slaves could get both weapons and training to protect themselves.

Unfortunately the southern Democrats put more effort and support into creating and mobilizing the KKK than the northern Republicans put into the NRA.

If the NRA had been better supported back then, then the recently freed slaves would've been able to level the playing field some by making members of the KKK genuinely fearful of getting killed, and we likely never would've gone through the 'Jim Crow' days.

Then there are the so called crime statistics around gun laws. People are always trying to slice them up to obfuscate the truth...neither increasing nor decreasing firearms regulations has any long term effect on crime, particularly violent crime.

As an example look at Lancaster and their 'Save a Life, Surrender Your Knife' campaign that was going strong from 2013 to 2015, but seems to be languishing now. (...or the 2005 'study' in which the BBC and British Medical Journal found chefs to claim that average citizens do not need 'pointy kitchen knives' and that they're too dangerous for citizens not trained as a chef.)

The only thing that has ever shown a demonstrative long term impact on crime, particularly violent crime, is improving the economy and the economic mobility of the citizenry.

As for terrorist attacks, while still relatively rare in 'western' societies, that is a far more complex issue than banning anything; and while there are economic factors at play, they're not a central factor.

 

[Wolfy]

Been around guns quite a lot. But... guns? Yes guns? Ok.

 

[Bambooza]

As most people have said: guns are a tool and IMO should be held by people with the proper training and knowledge to use them responsibly.
There are positive effects that can be had from tighter gun-control (See Australia, a former British colony with dangerous wild-life and a indigenous people pushed away from their previous lands that had a lot of guns (kinda like the US!) and the effect of the restrictions after the Port Arthur massacre.)
If you need them to feel safe from lunatics, keep in mind that they could also be armed with a gun... and would be the one to pull first.
If you need them to keep the government honest... my recommendation is to use your vote instead. You claim to live in a democracy, so use that power and vote for better politicians. You have more than 2 parties to vote for. Voting will make a bigger change in the long run than buying a gun.

There is a lot to unpack here, and some of which has lead to countless debates that have spans countless years.

For the situation with the lunatic with the gun, yes it is true that the first few victim's will be ill helped if they themselves were armed but it does allow the possibility of others to step in and bring about a quicker end. But lets step back from this edge case and look at the overall situation. What keeps the average person from killing another? Is it their own derived morality or the fear of loosing their own life be it jail or execution? It is the same answer that keeps people from using their bare hands to attack and possible kill another or using a nuclear warhead to decimate millions. The availability of a weapon does not bar anyone from harming another it simple increases or decreases the individual skills required to carry out ones intention. Its the same distinction one can apply to using a hammer and chisel to carve a bull nose on a piece of wood or a trim router, while both can achieve the same result the router lowers the required skill set allowing far more to accomplish the same result. Guns achieve the same result allowing one to kill another as compared to spending years training in Krav Maga or a number of other marital arts. And yet its not just guns that can allow an individual to carry out their desire to kill others, from bombs to knives and cars have all been uses recently to achieve the same result. While guns continue to draw political discord as they can be objectified and give the masses something to focus on while distracting them from the real question, how can we help/hinder those whose desire is to harm others as the current deterrent is not always effective for the fringe.

Democracy has its fallacies just as any other form of government, CGP Grey has several great YouTube videos on Rules for Rulers as well as possible voting techniques which all touch on the subject. The other areas are that people are not well informed and do not always vote in ways that are logical or even result in a favorable outcome for themselves. Game theory attempts to quantify this into mathematical models and to a certain degree are successful in showing that all voting blocks break down into a two party system that votes not in favor of positive compromises that work for all but result in a zero-sum game in which one persons gains result in losses of the others. Which is why even though the population is typical easily represented on any item as a bell curve the voting for candidates are not for those who occupy this middle ground and are instead mid left and right of center as the center becomes a valley and votes are not for anyone but against the opponent. There are ways to challenge this and allow for other voting processes but this goes against the best interests of those in power. It is this power of individuals and the minority that guns favor or limit. For it is the ultimate barter that one can leverage is their own life. We leverage our lives and our talents for power and goods, soldiers leverage their lives for the belief in a home their love ones can prosper in.

Thus putting ones own life on the line has far more power when utilizing weapons with guns currently being one of the strongest weapons available. With out them the will of a few with can and do influence the masses.

But this is becoming a huge wall of text and so I shall end it here for now. Feel free to ask or disagree with any of the above and we can unpack it further as this is a subject I find fascinating and have a long ways to go before i know anything.

 

[Graptor]

I'm totally impressed with the civility of the conversation. This is great. TESTies *are* awesome!

I read all the previous to make sure I wasn't repeating something already said, so hopefully this helps to add to the scope of the ban issue. I have to trust some of the internet numbers, as I don't have time for a full dissertation, but the numbers pass the sniff test of reasonability. I have looked into the Australian ban briefly, and if the numbers are trusted, the ban resulted i the destruction of 700,000 - 800,000 weapons. Probably not 100%, but a large percentage were turned in. This pales in comparison to US numbers just for starters. The scale of a ban would be enormous, and as @Han Burgundy has already pointed out, our culture in the US would probably dictate less cooperation. The quick research showed a couple of interesting things:

1. Approximately 70 - 80 million people legally own guns. That's about 35% of the voting population. By comparison the NRA only has by some reports 4-5 million members, and some reports say 12 million. Still, that is many factors less than the total number.

2. Of those, the total number of guns (probably a low guess) is 325 million! This is a staggering number! I doubt any collection program is going to get those off the street. And those are the guns that are known through legal registrations, imagine adding illegal firearms to that!

Based on this alone, a ban is not a reasonable approach. Something else needs to be figured out.

My quick opinion on gun as a tool. Context is everything. I live in a rural area, and protection of livestock and crops is a big thing. I won't hesitate to say more than 90% of the people I know own some kind of rifle, because we need to sustain a way of life where a rifle is a tool that is used for that purpose. I also know that kids are raised know how to handle fire arms as well, as it's not only part of the culture, but a necessary tool to maintain the lifestyle. And, this lifestyle provides most of the food, both vegetable and meat, that sustains the 300 million people in the US. It is not up to me to tell my neighbor an AR is not a good choice for shooting a coyote.

In closing, I do support the idea that something needs to be done. And it's above my pay grade to figure out exactly what that is. But I don't see a ban as a reasonable starting point. With such a large voting block, and unfortunately a large number of that voting block are single issue voters (I pride myself in not being a single issue voter, but many are).

 

[Ezz]

Not just anyone can purchase an automatic rifle in the USA. You should look at the National Firearms Act to understand just how expensive, time consuming, problematic, and heavily regulated that process is.

A little back story on the history of the NRA for context:
At the end of the Civil War a couple northern Republican politicians saw just how angry and desperate southern Democrats were getting and suspected they were going to soon use violence to punish the recently freed slaves. Since the southern Democrats still controlled the State and local governments the odds of law enforcement helping the recently freed slaves instead of further victimizing them was very low.
So they found an extremely popular (though arguably less effective militarily) Officer to prop up as the leader of the brand new NRA. Their initial mission was to do everything they could to ensure freed slaves could get both weapons and training to protect themselves.

Unfortunately the southern Democrats put more effort and support into creating and mobilizing the KKK than the northern Republicans put into the NRA.

If the NRA had been better supported back then, then the recently freed slaves would've been able to level the playing field some by making members of the KKK genuinely fearful of getting killed, and we likely never would've gone through the 'Jim Crow' days.

How does this history play a role in the debate nowadays?

Then there are the so called crime statistics around gun laws. People are always trying to slice them up to obfuscate the truth...neither increasing nor decreasing firearms regulations has any long term effect on crime, particularly violent crime.

As an example look at Lancaster and their 'Save a Life, Surrender Your Knife' campaign that was going strong from 2013 to 2015, but seems to be languishing now. (...or the 2005 'study' in which the BBC and British Medical Journal found chefs to claim that average citizens do not need 'pointy kitchen knives' and that they're too dangerous for citizens not trained as a chef.)

The only thing that has ever shown a demonstrative long term impact on crime, particularly violent crime, is improving the economy and the economic mobility of the citizenry.

As for terrorist attacks, while still relatively rare in 'western' societies, that is a far more complex issue than banning anything; and while there are economic factors at play, they're not a central factor.

How about Australia who changed their laws after a mass shooting? It seems to me like it worked since there were no mass shootings after the ban.

I've read that it won't solve all the problems, and that you guys need another way to fix the issue. But to be frank there is not one perfect solution that fixes everything. But you can make tragedies like Vegas less likely to happen.
And maybe you and everyone you know is a responsible gun owner but you can't deny that there are people who own guns and they shouldn't. And yes, people will find other ways to kill in masses like we saw in in Europe in reascend years. But that doesn't mean that there is no point in banning automatic guns.

And @Deroth you said not everyone is able to get his hands on an automatic rifle, but why should anyone be able to own one? I Don't see the point in allowing it if it comes with a risk like it does. I am not saying you should ban all and every gun. It's your culture .. and maybe you feel saver knowing that you have a gun in your home. But you don't need an AK to protect your property. I just don't see the reason why you would want that if it comes with the cost of someone using such a weapon to kill civilians...

 

[Bambooza]

If you think a gun reform would not help take a look at Australia who passed laws and did not have a mass shooting since. Read here.

While this statement is true it neglects to highlight the reality that while guns may no longer be used in multiple killings it has not stopped people from killing multiple others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia


So the argument is not the effectiveness of a ban on guns or a ban on weapons but the concept that such bans does not eliminate the root problem which is people can be assholes. While guns does allow less skilled individuals far more easily inflect their desires on others not having a weapon puts one a distinct disadvantage when subjugated to the will of another who is utilizing a gun. In fact if you could some how magically remove all guns then people would revert to crossbows, and if you remove those then swords, and on up the technical tree until people are forced to use their fists, stones and sticks. At which point conflicts become far more unbalanced as ones physical abilities and training play a far larger factor in deciding the outcome. Which is why kings and knights could so easily dominate and control huge populations of peasants.

But back to the subject of gun violence, while guns and gun violence remains a hot topic it is only one of many ways people continue to kill each other.

 

[Bambooza]

And maybe you and everyone you know is a responsible gun owner but you can't deny that there are people who own guns and they shouldn't. And yes, people will find other ways to kill in masses like we saw in in Europe in reascend years. But that doesn't mean that there is no point in banning automatic guns.

If banning automatic rifles does not solve people finding ways to kill in masses then what issue does banning automatic rifles solve?
Should we also not remove ones ability to drive a motor vehicle which ends up killing slightly more then guns at 35,092 vs 31,537 (11,583 murders, 18,783 suicide). Or remove peoples ability to choose unhealthy foods 610,000 deaths from heart disease.

So while yes guns do kill people and in the USA guns are by far the favorite choice to achieve this goal, the rest of the world shows that bombings are by far way more effective in killing and wounding far more people at once. So while banning guns may help reduce the number of gun related problems this would only shift the symptom to another method and do nothing to resolve the root cause.

 

[Pander]

While this statement is true it neglects to highlight the reality that while guns may no longer be used in multiple killings it has not stopped people from killing multiple others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia


So the argument is not the effectiveness of a ban on guns or a ban on weapons but the concept that such bans does not eliminate the root problem which is people can be assholes.

You are right here it will never stop violence and killing but a quick look at those numbers what around 70 - 80 killed or injured since the new laws after arthur massacre in 1996? in the las vegas shooting the number of deaths is around 60 with hundreds injured in one incident

Every month in america 50 or so people are killed with hundreds wounded every month too

People are assholes the point is stop making it an arms race on who got the best massacre by giving them the perfect tools to do it

If banning automatic rifles does not solve people finding ways to kill in masses then what issue does banning automatic rifles solve?
Should we also not remove ones ability to drive a motor vehicle which ends up killing slightly more then guns at 35,092 vs 31,537 (11,583 murders, 18,783 suicide). Or remove peoples ability to choose unhealthy foods 610,000 deaths from heart disease.

So while yes guns do kill people and in the USA guns are by far the favorite choice to achieve this goal, the rest of the world shows that bombings are by far way more effective in killing and wounding far more people at once. So while banning guns may help reduce the number of gun related problems this would only shift the symptom to another method and do nothing to resolve the root cause.

This is the kind of thing I was waiting for if you see my earlier post haha

New cars are inspected from a pedestrian point of view if they hit it where will the body go will it go over the car?
Crumple zones are placed in cars to keep the driver and passengers safe the point i'm trying to make is cars are constantly being made safer and cleaner, Eventually i see a time where cars are smart enough to stop because it picks up a pedestrian. the point is improvement

Guns however are made to take a life that's what they are built for and do that really well.

Eating is a choice people make on themselves if the death count of 610,000 was because of a man murdering other folk with a cheeseburger then yes i would be worried about cheeseburger related crimes

What i'm trying to say is we are moving forwards on our abilities to create and protect not regressing by finding the best most effective way to kill someone we should be moving forward not backward

 

[hardroc77]

I used to love guns, guns are fun to shoot and pretty kick ass.

I also work in an ER in Philadelphia. I've dealt with GSW's on a patient as young as 12 screaming and crying for their mother as they bleed out while her mother bleeds out at another hospital.

After that I really don't like real guns anymore. I know the entire conversation is well I work in a high crime rate area and people will still find ways to kill each other but I never heard of an automatic knife thrower that can go through walls. Sometimes as a society we need to make sacrifices, the only sacrifice I ask for is that people limit the type of weapon they feel they should have.

This.

 

[Ezz]

But back to the subject of gun violence, while guns and gun violence remains a hot topic it is only one of many ways people continue to kill each other.

If banning automatic rifles does not solve people finding ways to kill in masses then what issue does banning automatic rifles solve?

And that is an argument I do not understand. "If you ban guns, there will still be other ways to kill people so don't ban guns."
If you keep terrorists from hijacking planes and killing people there are still ways to kill people so why try to stop them hijacking a plane?
And again, I am not saying, that all kind guns have to be banned. Because of your culture that won't be a thing. But make it impossible to get automated rifles. And saying "it is not that easy " is bs since it seemed to be easy enough.

And as I asked earlier but did not get an answer .. why do people need automatic rifles? Why do you need 600 shots per minute to protect yourself? What is happening in the states? Zombie-Cyborg-Dinosaurs?

 

[Krystal LeChuck]

And that is an argument I do not understand. "If you ban guns, there will still be other ways to kill people so don't ban guns."
If you keep terrorists from hijacking planes and killing people there are still ways to kill people so why try to stop them hijacking a plane?
And again, I am not saying, that all kind guns have to be banned. Because of your culture that won't be a thing. But make it impossible to get automated rifles. And saying "it is not that easy " is bs since it seemed to be easy enough.

And as I asked earlier but did not get an answer .. why do people need automatic rifles? Why do you need 600 shots per minute to protect yourself? What is happening in the states? Zombie-Cyborg-Dinosaurs?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[Ezz]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Cool.

 

[Deroth]

And as I asked earlier but did not get an answer .. why do people need automatic rifles? Why do you need 600 shots per minute to protect yourself? What is happening in the states? Zombie-Cyborg-Dinosaurs?

A huge part of the problem with trying to explain this is the lies from politicians, media, Hollywood, and education systems in regards to this issue so first many people have to unlearn what they think they know in order to begin to understand the truth, and this is not an easy thing to accomplish.

First off, automatic weapons were never designed or intended as 'murder machines', their design, development, and intention is for what is called 'suppressive fire'. Automatic weapons by their very nature are highly inaccurate and have a very low kill rate per round fired (example: the Las Vegas shooter fired around 200 rounds just into the hallway when hotel security was outside his room, but only managed to wound the hotel security guard.) Suppressive fire is primarily for fear, to keep opposition too scared to move, much less return fire, it is defensive by its very nature. However, in a civilian environment this means your looking at an extreme risk of collateral damage, which is why most automatic weapons are classified as Ordinance instead of as Arms.

The first true automatic rifles were technically Battle Rifles, which means they used mid sized rounds such as .308 and .30-06. These are .30 caliber or 7.62 9mm rounds, making them comparably heavy, limiting how many can be carried, which negates the point of using them in automatic fire, not to mention the recoil and muzzle flip made them even less effective.
In stepped Hitler with the StG-44 using a low power round (33mm long by 7.92mm across, giving it slightly more mass than a 9mm handgun round.) This was the first Assault Rifle, the concept being that by using small light and low power rounds then even the least effective soldiers on the battlefield can still be useful by providing suppressive fire while effective soldiers do the actual killing with their semi-automatic Battle Rifles.

A moderately trained person can take hundreds of rounds with an automatic rifle to kill one person, whereas that same person with a Battle Rifle can kill someone consistently with one to two rounds fired.


Now the funny thing about the numbers of people killed or wounded by firearms is that the majority isn't even done with a rifle at all, but with cheap, typically stolen, handguns in cities where firearms are the most heavily regulated.
The flip side of that is that the rate of crimes reported as stopped or prevented by the legal use is firearms is three times greater than the rate of firearms being used to commit crimes.
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

Now, I am not claiming that Ordnance should be readily available to all citizens, but I also don't see any issue with a wealthy citizen that is willing to pay the price tag and undergo the level of continuous scrutiny involved in legally owning Ordnance being allowed to do so. Most governments seem to feel this way as well, though the last time I checked the laws for this in European countries you had to be both wealthy and politically connected.

 

[Deroth]

Funny video that demonstrates the difference between perception and reality for firearms:

View: https://youtu.be/SqJ_4YhYMhE

 

[Ezz]

A huge part of the problem [...]

But my question still remains. Why do you need one as a civilian in the states? And as you pointed out an auto is highly inaccurate. But if you have a situation like the one in Vegas with many people in a small area you don't need to be highly accurate to have a horrible outcome .. I mean you saw what happened. So a automatic rifle IS dangerous. It can take a lot of lives in seconds like it did. So again, why do you need a automatic rifle in the states and say that a mass shooting like the one in Las Vegas .. well can't do anything about it but pray :shrug: Maybe there are more accurate weapons .. so what? And I assume with a handgun the outcome of the attack wouldn't have been that devastating. WHY do you after such a tragedy still feel the need to own a automatic rifle? Why do you need one? Do you fire your automatic rifle in your home to scare burglar? That would be insane and I think we can all agree on that. So thanks for your explanation @Deroth but I Still don't understand what the use of such a weapon for a normal citizen in the States would be.

 

[Deroth]

As I've explained already, normal citizens cannot legally acquire an automatic rifle, it is too expensive, time consuming, and regulated.

The Las Vegas shooter DID NOT use any automatic rifles.


He used multiple semi-automatic weapons that had been modified, predominately with what is referred to as a Bump Stock.

A Bump Stock functions by stealing some of the energy required to properly cycle a round to aid the shooter in squeezing the trigger faster. Due to this they have a high rate of causing misfeeds and jams, which police are now reporting that he had multiple jammed rifles in the hotel room due to this very fact.
With sufficient practice and extreme coordination a normal person can shoot as quickly as a Bump Stock can achieve, but it isn't easy. However, it also takes quite a bit of practice to use a Bump Stock to fire more than a handful of rounds at a time.

Now, if you want to know how he was able to get his hands on so many Bump Stocks as well as practice with them to become as proficient with them as he appeared to be without raising any concerns with anyone at all...well, that is one of the things law enforcement has stated they're now specifically trying to determine as well.