Gun Control

[Crni Vuk]

Sure my humor might be a little blue and I do cross over into being quite spicy from time to time, but Edgelord territory? I scoff at the notion.

Sarcasm, humor, call it what ever you want. You know what I mean.

Just keep it down a notch ok? You've been here since 2008. And you know how forums work. And you know how discussions work. This is not a spam-all-have-only-fun topic. People sometimes try to have discussions here, making points, what ever. You get the drift. I am not trying to be condescending here. But seriously, com on. Anyway I am not going to comment more on this I said what I wanted to say. The rest is up to you. I just removed you from my ignore list. Don't make ignore you again ...

Better example (IMO) is the Newhart finaly, but it only makes sense if you have watched the original Bob Newhart show.

The point is that more people runing around with guns will mean more irresponsible people having access to it. And yes GM, this is not a >controversial< point but it still should be something to think about when your argument is that guns equal safety. Because not only criminals with guns can be an issue but also citizens that have no clue how to handle them properly or how to act in an emergency.

Do I say remove them? No. I did not say such thing. But it would be good if for example buying a gun would come with mandatory training lessons by experts particularly if your intention is to buy the weapon for your securty. So you actually learn when and how you should respond and when it is better to just well, run away as strange as it sounds. I remember in self defence that our teacher said, you konw that's actually a feasible tactic if you have the chance to do it.

A bonus effect would be also if you actually got people in to gun lessons at gun clubs and stores, they would form communities and be part of gun communities. And if there is one thing communities are good in it's spoting the lunatics. Getting to know the people. Which might also help in lowering mass shootings.

 

[Gizmojunk]

The problem is that too many people are crazy; lots are high functioning crazy. Any attempt to limit gun ownership—outside of prior felony conviction(s), is seen as discrimination (which is EXACTLY what it is; for all our sakes).

 

[Hassknecht]

I agree that some form of mandatory gun training as part of the licensing process should be done. It won't really help with crime, but at least it might help with accidents.
And I think it meshes with the 2nd Amendment and a functioning militia, so as long as accessibility to such training is given, it should be ok.

 

[Crni Vuk]

The problem is that too many people are crazy; lots are high functioning crazy.

Yes but I am not sure what the argument here is, doing nothing because someone like the Las Vegas shooter deserved his guns? I mean that really can't be the gist of it.

Besides there are many possible solutions for this question. Like a temporary storage of the guns and a professional counceling for the person in question. Maybe after 3 or 6 months of counceling they get their weapons back. It's also not really exceptional. Many professions have something like that where you have to take some counceling. I think pilots if I remember correctly.

Besides as far as I remember you can also loose your right to own guns completely if you're a felon trough the Gun Control Act, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968. What's your opinion on that?

is seen as discrimination (which is EXACTLY what it is; for all our sakes).

Not really. Not giving a driver licence to someone who shows up drunk at a training lesson isn't disciminatory to alcoholics that never drive while being drunk. I am somewhat hyperbolic here but if you get to know someone over a considerable amount of time and you get the feeling the person wants to kill a lot of people out of frustration and decide that he maybe should get some counceling before owning a fire arm than this is not discriminatory to those that have depressions or other kinds of mental ilnesses that are not harmfull to others - for the most part.

 

[TheGM]

I agree that some form of mandatory gun training as part of the licensing process should be done. It won't really help with crime, but at least it might help with accidents.

I got that where I live. if you want to carry it, you've got to go to classes. that is on top of the separate license you have to pay for to even be able to own a gun.

But the classes really boil down to one thing. Don't. Unless it is life and death situation, fucking don't.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Yes but I am not sure what the argument here is, doing nothing because someone like the Las Vegas shooter deserved his guns? I mean that really can't be the gist of it.

Of course not... My point was that there are many [millions?] who are just fine working their daily jobs, and living out their lives—who are not mentally well suited to possessing a live firearm; I do not mean criminals, or un-medicated lunatics... I mean regular average people. (But how can guns be kept out of their hands? What happens when they are in a life threatening situation where they really could have survived if they had had one?)

Besides as far as I remember you can also loose your right to own guns completely if you're a felon trough the Gun Control Act, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968. What's your opinion on that?

I alluded to this in my prior post. As for opinion, I am for it—not that it does a damn thing; any felon who wants a gun can get one... a few might even pull it off in prison.

Not really. Not giving a driver licence to someone who shows up drunk at a training lesson isn't disciminatory

Yes really; not giving the license due to drunkenness is the drunkard's fault, and serves as the reason to withhold the license. What reason is there for someone who is responsible, and passes all tests—and is still mentally unsuitable for gun ownership? There ISN'T one; not a fair one.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Of course not... My point was that there are many [millions?] who are just fine working their daily jobs, and living out their lives—who are not mentally well suited to possessing a live firearm; I do not mean criminals, or un-medicated lunatics... I mean regular average people. (But how can guns be kept out of their hands? What happens when they are in a life threatening situation where they really could have survived if they had had one?)

That makes hardly any sense to me though ... they are saved by a gun ... they are not capable of wielding properly? Because tha's what I am talking about here. If you can not even operate your firearm properly and are not ready to actaully use it when it counts then you are much more likely to actually hurt your self with it then to actually protect your self. Firearms alone do not turn you into Annie Oakley or Wyatt Earp just because you have them in your pocket. If that wasn't the case any military could save them self a lot of money by not training their soldiers with their firearms.

You have to train to become profecient with your firearm and actually exercise regularly on a shooting range because skills deteriorate over time. And that's only the shooting part. How to act in an actuall emergency from a robbery, to a violent attack is a whole different story. Guns can even be a liability in some cases giving you a false sense of superiority.

Yes really; not giving the license due to drunkenness is the drunkard's fault, and serves as the reason to withhold the license. What reason is there for someone who is responsible, and passes all tests—and is still mentally unsuitable for gun ownership? There ISN'T one; not a fair one.

Hold on a moment let me stop you right there. The example above tells me that we're talking past each other here.

Before you create any more of those examples which isn't the point I am trying to make let me tell you what I am talking about. It's people like the shooter in Las Vegas. This kind of mental instability is very different from what you described. And not giving them access to guns is I think something we all - I hope - can agree. That's the metric here. And not what ever if someone is living a super happy live but is maybe on anti depressants or what ever. Albeit you could make good arguments to keep the weapons even out of their hands, if not due to the danger of killing others but maybe because people that are prone to suicidial thoughts might simply pull the trigger on them self in a bad moment.

I have first hand(!) wittnessed what it means when crazy family members have access to a gun mate. I know what I am talking about here. Believe me. And yet I am FOR gun ownership. But I just do not want guns in the hands of deranged people that are a danger to evreyone around them. And I do not think this is to much to ask for. Nor is it any kind of discrimination.

If you really aim at arming the population and increasing the number of firearms then you will see a spike in those kinds of accidents and gun deaths.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Mentally unsuited is not the same as mentally unstable.

 

[PsychoSniper]

The fuck? I am not trying to change your mind. Because I am not trying to take anones gun away.

Are you complaining that I am merely pringing up a point in a discussion, get of my back. Serouisly. I hate this smug passive aggressive attitude. Honestly what's your god damn problem with what I said?

My argument is that if you want more people to own guns then you have to also consider how to handle cases where people get guns that don't know how to use them or situations where people overract, act out of fear, basically doing police work and so on. A gun isn't just something that can protect you, it also comes with responsibilities. Or am I wrong here?

Thats why Im not really giving a fuck about those two meme worthy lawyers that brandiahed guns at a crowd that are facing charges, fucktards obviously didnt know how to handle them safely, especially the wife.

Im not going to really weigh in on their defending their property, it was an allowed move in my book, but they did it as piss poor as they could have without opening fire, they're a great example of the responsibilties you mention.

A smarter move would have been to stay indoors on the second floor, with one of them covering the front door (from upstairs if possible) and stay back unless the crowd moved on their house.

The grand irony is that mob was there intending to march on a local politicians house, the mayor if I recall correctly.


edit: also using gun clubs to spot the crazies wouldnt stop most mass shootings, many of those involve stolen guns.

And making people pay would be on very shaky constitutional grounds, as poorer people may not be able to afford it, far better to have firearms safetybe part of school, make ot part of a senior year civics course, teach how the law works and other practical knowledge.

 

[TorontoReign]

 

[PsychoSniper]

SOUNDS LIKE FREEDOM!

 

[TheGM]

especially the wife.

well to be fair to her, the gun she had was deactivated so I guess to make up for it she was aggressive as fuck with it and handle it poorly.

 

[Crni Vuk]

And making people pay would be on very shaky constitutional grounds, as poorer people may not be able to afford it, far better to have firearms safetybe part of school, make ot part of a senior year civics course, teach how the law works and other practical knowledge.

Well that brings up a whole new problem when you consider the severe decline in living standard across the United States. In other words the growing inequality and the effect it has on society. There is a growing problem with sucide rates in the United States which is almost like a pademic.

“So, the problem of gun violence in this country is primarily a suicide problem, less so a homicide problem,” said Kaplan to the audience, which included future social workers who are students in the master of social welfare (MSW) program. While recognizing the spike in gun deaths in cities such as Chicago – more than 50 in January in that city alone — Kaplan said that over the past 10-15 years there has been an overall national decline in the rate of gun deaths.

Kaplan said gun ownership in the U.S. is at more than 300 million and growing, and the death rate is only part of the story. He pointed out that for all of the recorded deaths by guns, there were more than 81,000 people – more than 200 per day – injured nationwide by guns in 2014.

“There are a lot of individuals who are shot, who survive, who wind up in emergency departments, are hospitalized and often disabled for life.”

A relationship exists between the high rate of guns and gun ownership and the number of homicides, suicides and injuries. Kaplan said that work is needed “on the ground” in America’s cities, such as limiting access to guns that would “go a long way to reducing some of the fatalities that we’re experiencing both in the homicide and suicide.”

(...)

The U.S. stands out among industrialized nations, Kaplan said. Gun homicides in the U.S. are 25 times higher than the average of other high-income countries. Factors such as poverty and inequality are contributing factors, he said.

“You all hear about poverty, but inequality is another measure of economic well-being. And there is a strong correlation between homicide per million and income inequality,” said Kaplan, pointing out that countries that are most equal have the lowest rates of gun-related homicides.

In terms of race and ethnicity, Kaplan said that 77 percent of white gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides, while less than 1 in 5 (19 percent) is a homicide. The figures are nearly opposite for African Americans, for which only 14 percent are suicides.

- Mark Kaplan, professor of Social Welfare at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
https://luskin.ucla.edu/connection-poverty-inequality-firearm-violence

If you now throw in the opioid crisis and you really have a serious issue on your hands.

Most of the issues are not caused by guns, of course, but the more guns you have the worse the issue becomes if you do not adress the question of inequality, poverty and economic issues.

 

[Gizmojunk]

What about [serious question] the inequality of being the sole resident in a neighborhood...who doesn't own a gun?

 

[Crni Vuk]

I am sorry I am not sure what you're trying to say. Maybe you could be more specific?

 

[Gizmojunk]

Ah... Being the only unarmed household in the area.
(Where the neighbors are all armed to the teeth.)

 

[Crni Vuk]

Yes, that I understand. But what has that to do with my point? Your question is also far more complex than you think.

Is it good, bad?

What kind of neighbourhod are we talking about?
Poor? Rich?
Gated Community?
Rural town?
What is the crime rate?
What type of gun owership? Legal? Ilegal?

Like if you're a member of a gated community where you're the only one without a gun and zero crim rate where everyone was a legal gun owner? If you chose not to own a gun in such case. What's the harm?

I guess you would have to decide that from case to case. It's an individual decision everyone has to make for them self.

 

[Gizmojunk]

• Poor? Rich?
  
• Gated Community?
  — Do these matter?
  — Is the assumption really that rich people won't abuse firearms, or commit gun crimes?
  
  
• Rural town?
• What is the crime rate?
• What type of gun owership? Legal? Ilegal?
  — Do these matter? How does it matter if your neighbor's weapon is legal?
  — How does it matter when your neighbor has a grudge, and you are alone in your yard, taking out the trash at 5AM? While bleeding out, does the victim care if their neighbor was stupid enough to shoot at them from next door?

About nine years ago, the guy living across the street from me had his house shot at —every night at eleven for a week; like clockwork...
It's almost like the shooter would swing by after work. Bang, Bang, tires peeling out.

___________
Do people really believe that crime is entirely motivated by need? Some people will do crimes for the hell of it, on dares, revenge, for perceived slights, and for plain malice. More than once I've seen news reports of shooting deaths that occurred seemingly for skipping the line at a drive-thru restaurant. It's not only about need.

They arrested a woman years ago in California, for welfare fraud. She was driving a porsche; bought with welfare checks. Crime is ingrained. You put a group of people on the street homeless for a month, and some will immediately look for a handout (or even a victim), while others will look for a job. This doesn't necessarily fall in line with their previous lifestyle or level of wealth—it's their core personality.

I was once approached by a fellow in $150 shoes, and a tweed suit. He begged me for 35¢; along with everyone else he passed on the street. I saw the man in the same spot for a week. If he really was homeless (he said he was out of gas), he could have spent that first day hunting a job instead of begging for coins. He was standing within sight of two shopping malls, and a dozen restaurants; with a hundred more in the space of a few blocks.

He could have sold his shoes (and bought cheaper ones), or bought a bus ticket, or a caught a cab.
_________

As to gun licensing... I cannot even imagine a test for weeding out this temperament; one that could be administered at scale (and not be cheated). But a flat rule of no weapons is not the answer—too many victims, many of them injured or dead.

 

[Crni Vuk]

• Poor? Rich?
  
• Gated Community?
  — Do these matter?
  — Is the assumption really that rich people won't abuse firearms, or commit gun crimes?
  
  
• Rural town?
• What is the crime rate?
• What type of gun owership? Legal? Ilegal?
  — Do these matter? How does it matter if your neighbor's weapon is legal?
  — How does it matter when your neighbor has a grudge, and you are alone in your yard, taking out the trash at 5AM? While bleeding out, does the victim care if their neighbor was stupid enough to shoot at them from next door?

Of course all those things matter. It's sociology 101. The more poverty, the more desperate people, the higher the crime rates and so on.

Besides I am not sure how a gun is making you more safe if someone really has a >grudge< with you. If someone has the intention to murder you then he's most likely not coming up to your door step and asking you for a duel between gentlemen in the next morning. He will probably stand somewhere where you can't spot him and wait for an oportunity to shoot you in the back. Jessy James and Robert Ford style.

Like I said plenty of times. A gun just for it self is no guaranteed protection. There are situations where you can even the odds of course and where having a gun is very beneficial it can be an equalizer. But many people also get murdered despite being armed and well trained in their firearm.

About nine years ago, the guy living across the street from me had his house shot at —every night at eleven for a week; like clockwork...
It's almost like the shooter would swing by after work. Bang, Bang, tires peeling out.

And in which way would owning a gun prevent that from happening? Just having it next to your pillow is not going to make the guy not drive up to it in the middle of the night and shooting the front of your home. So unless you actually know who it is a gun for it self isn't going to help you here. It is very difficult to protect your self from this kind of agression anyway particularly if you do not know who exactly holds a gudge against you. It's simply to easy to mess up someone's live.

Do people really believe that crime is entirely motivated by need?

Of course not.

But things are conected. People are as much susceptible to the environment they live in as they also shape it. Living and more importantly growing up in a very poor area with high numbers of drug addicts and violence where you can't really find decent jobs and have no access to good infrastructure have very different effects on people compared to environment with high living standards, great job opportunities and good infrastructure. It's almost like very stressful environments are no really healthy to your overal physical and psychological condition.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Of course all those things matter. It's sociology 101.

Sociology matters? I thought this was a running joke, like getting a masters degree in English grammar, or hyper-niche variant social studies.

The more poverty, the more desperate people, the higher the crime rates and so on.

....And the more reason to possess a gun.

Besides I am not sure how a gun is making you more safe if someone really has a >grudge< with you. If someone has the intention to murder you then he's most likely not coming up to your door step and asking you for a duel between gentlemen in the next morning.

Hyperbole doesn't suite, (and a grudge bearer would most likely want them to know it was them). In either case having recourse is better than not having any; to either stand there and get shot, or to shoot back. Just having a visible gun might be enough to dissuade.

*Not that I think it smart, but some people DO get tattoos depicting pistols stuffed in the back of their pants; (so they appear armed at a distance, when shirtless, and their back is turned).

Like I said plenty of times. A gun just for it self is no guaranteed protection. There are situations where you can even the odds of course and where having a gun is very beneficial it can be an equalizer. But many people also get murdered despite being armed and well trained in their firearm.

That's life. But if having a gun boosted your odds of surviving imminent violent death by even a single percentage (as opposed to a more reasonable number)... would you refuse it?

People are as much susceptible to the environment they live in as they also shape it. Living and more importantly growing up in a very poor area with high numbers of drug addicts and violence where you can't really find decent jobs and have no access to good infrastructure have very different effects on people compared to environment with high living standards, great job opportunities and good infrastructure.

And how do guns apply to this? People can kill with playing cards, and even thrown bolts. They don't need a gun for that. People are mugged at screwdriver tip.