Ban guns now.
Even more kids yet again killed via gunshot in the USA cinemas.
shareMy AR would disagree with you.
sharePlease clean it often.
share
MovieChat Forums > Joe Biden Discussion > Ban guns now.
[deleted]
what about cars? they kill people too...
shareYou can’t take a car into a school and kill 40 people with it.
shareApproximately 1.35 million people die in road crashes each year; on average 3,700 people lose their lives every day on the roads.
An additional 20-50 million suffer non-fatal injuries, often resulting in long-term disabilities.
https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/
You left that part out that said the U.S. traffic fatality rate is 12.4 deaths per 100,000 residents.
The firearm related death rate in the USA is 12.21 per 100,000.
Where i live where guns are banned, the gun related death rate is 0.23 per 100,000.
I rest my case.
But how many of those are criminals killing other criminals? The metric that matters is how often innocent people are killed by guns, which is only a fraction of that number. It is incredibly unlikely for an American to be shot in his lifetime, much less killed. One is more likely to win the lottery than be shot.
Also salient-- where do you live? 0.23 per 100,000 doesn't mean much if you have to live in Azerbaijan. I'll take the slightly higher chance of being shot in exchange for living in the U.S.
Criminals killing other criminals riiight.
When was the last time a ‘criminal’ shot a civilian, then the civilian shot back to defend themselves?
Oh I’m from the UK.
If you factor out gang violence, and all the other cases of criminals shooting other criminals, American gun stats take a deep plunge. Also keep in mind that shooting statistics are kept differently here. One example-- a school bus driver got into his bus one morning, and saw that during the night someone had shot a window on the bus with a bb gun, and left a couple divots. That was reported as a "school shooting."
As for civilians shooting back in defense, it happens often, but not often enough. :)
Only deaths are counted not cracks in a bloody school bus window.
Yeah i keep looking but also can’t find one single instance where a person shot back at a ‘criminal’ anywhere.
I'm talking about the way "mass shootings" and "school shootings" are tallied here. In general, you'll find that any such stats are kept and reported by those framing the narrative, and are twisted to create a notion that gun violence is some sort of rampant epidemic in the U.S., which is not the case at all. Gun violence is incredibly rare.
You didn't look very hard if you didn't find any examples of potential victims shooting criminals. Here's something that happened near where I live quite recently.
https://www.kwtx.com/2021/06/02/elderly-texan-shoots-kills-home-intruder/
Here's one from last December, where a man shot and killed a criminal who was holding his family at gunpoint:
https://www.kadn.com/content/news/Texas-Father-Shoots-Kills-Intruder-Holding-2-Children-at-Gunpoint-573506841.html
Just read the first story, the home owner seemed to murder the guy who didn’t have a gun but ok he should not have broken his window.
The second story seems legit. Imagine if the person who held his family never had a gun in the first place.
Getting rid of guns is obviously the only option after those two stories.
Oh, you're a disarmed British subject paying over half your income in taxes and taking whatever they give you. Didn't you get the memo, we haven't cared what you think since 1776?
shareIn addition to criminals shooting at each other, a lot of gun death statistics are suicides.
share[deleted]
Actually you can, just drive it straight into a class room you can take out an entire class of 5 year olds
shareYikes thankfully nobody has ever done that.
shareI know, some of these classrooms are right next to the parking lot, so all someone would have to do is drive straight into the classroom (probably aim for the window as that will be likely to break more easily), plow through the wall and just keep driving as they take out as many kids as they can. I’m guessing anyone who would do this would be on a suicide mission anyways so them not being able to back their car out to escape isn’t really a concern.
Or they could just wait until the kids are at recess, a fence is far easier to break through.
Or a terrorist just steals a tank truck full of gasoline and plows into a school and tosses a match. If maximum carnage is a goal then things beyond guns can cause more death and destruction. In the past dynamite was used in a school... can't recall the state, i think it was Virginia or Pennsylvania.
shareOr they could just make a homemade bomb, drive through the school and then detonate it, and the gas in the truck will make the explosion ever bigger. And since the police will be defunded I doubt there will be a school resource officer there to stop the person.
shareIf it can cause more destruction, why haven’t they done it already?
Noone in the UK ever took a tank truck and drove it into a school because it’s just not possible, who leaves a tank truck full of fuel with the keys in and how do you not get stopped before you reach a school if you do steal it. Those things are slow as hell accelerating and not going to manoeuvre well enough to get into school grounds then aim at a classroom at a good speed.
Next weird carnage weapon?
If you have ever been to any truck stop in America there are lots of drivers that leave their rigs running 24/7. Of course that assumes the terrorist would want to find one that was left running, they could just as easily kill a driver at one of the truck stops and leave his body in the back of the cab. If they are going to kill a bunch of kids I don't think they are going to hesitate to kill a middle aged truck driver along the way.
As for feasibility of driving into a school, I'm not familiar with where Schools are located in the UK but I know there are quite a few that are located right off 4 lane highways. And once a large truck that weighs 30 to 40 tons starts moving through a parking lot or building it isn't going to be easily stopped. It's called inertia and once that much weight is moving it will plow through brick walls.
Sounds pretty grim. Don’t think it has ever once happened either.
Sure you can, you can drive your car straight into a classroom and kill the entire class, or just drive through the gate of the playground and run all of the kids over.
shareNo you can’t, it’s never happened and never will.
shareBecause it’s never happened doesn’t mean it can’t happen. By that logic nothing can ever happen because there has to be a first time for something to happen.
shareWhat other mass-murderous ideas have you made up in your head?
shareYour assertion is by definition a logical fallacy.
shareNah you just like guns because of a 200 year old Amendment it’s not your fault your ancestors made them a normal way of life.
shareAnd now you are deflecting with incredibly nonsensical attempts at insults while ignoring the obvious flaws in logic in your argument.
shareWrong. Stop the guns stop the killing. Fact.
shareGreat then that means there shouldn’t be any shootings in “gun free zones” oh wait……
shareExactly.
shareLol and yet there are. Your premise has been debunked.
shareWrong. Ban the guns end the killings.
shareBy your own standard that isn’t true. Are you trolling me? As of now to me that is the only logical explanation
shareWrong. Look at the stats. Miles more gun deaths in America.
Not sure what you are talking bout.
First of all that wasn’t what you said, you said that there shouldn’t be any shootings in “gun free zones” yet there are. Secondly comparing us to other countries is moronic as we are two completely different cultures. That’s like saying that we should have a higher percentage of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere because Mars does, it’s stupid.
shareNo you are ‘cultured’ to have guns because it’s in a 200 year old stupid rule and your parents, grandparents, great-grandparents had them etc.
shareWow pretty much everything you said in that post was wrong, that's typical of libtarded people though they think that they can sort you into certain demographics and after they've determined what demographic you fit into they all of a sudden know everything about you despite knowing nothing.
shareYou can tell a Trump fan when they inappropriately use the word they use, not your fault that you are uneducated.
sharewhat about cars? they kill people too...
I never understood this argument. Cars are not designed to kill - guns are. Moreover, because cars can kill, strict rules are in place to ensure that 1) each user is properly qualified to operate one, and 2) each vehicle is properly registered. If you want to continue with the car analogy, by all means, but realise that this does mean much stricter gun control. share
guns dont kill people, bullets do...
its easier to buy bullets than cigarettes, maybe we should make it harder to buy them?
Cars are not designed to kill - guns are.
The point is that any tool can be used for killing, even cars. Guns happen to be an easier tool than most, but really, you should be glad that these loons don't get more creative than using guns.
I don't want to get specific so as not to give anyone any ideas, but I can literally kill hundreds of people very easily and probably get away with it.
share
The point is that any tool can be used for killing, even cars.
That's an irrelevant point, because anything can be used to kill. But only weapons are specifically designed to do so. And they are remarkably more efficient at it than non-weapons. And non-weapons that are particularly dangerous are subject to restrictions. To drive a car, you need to obtain a driver's license. To obtain a driver's license, you need training to prove that you're qualified.
Guns happen to be an easier tool than most, but really, you should be glad that these loons don't get more creative than using guns.
With guns, they don't have to be. Why make it easy for them? share
That's an irrelevant point, because anything can be used to kill. But only weapons are specifically designed to do so.
Guns aren't designed to murder, they're designed to kill, yes.(among other things). Cars aren't designed for murder either, but that's not much consolation to the family of some kids who were run down in a schoolyard by some loon, or to those whose lives were destroyed by a Walmart pressure cooker bomb in a Boston celebration, or the people in Oklahoma who died in the bombing of the federal building - a bomb made out of just diesel fuel and fertilizer.
With guns, they don't have to be. Why make it easy for them?
You clearly aren't American. This country was founded by people who believe in liberty and freedom of tyranny. In America, the government works for us. Guns protect us from tyranny and it's an acceptable risk we choose to take. Millions were murdered in the 20th century in Europe and Asia by governments who first disarmed the population.
Here's a list of the worst genocides in the 20th century. Guess how many took place in countries in which the victims were disarmed?
https://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
share
Guns aren't designed to murder, they're designed to kill, yes.(among other things).
I never used the word 'murder', I said 'kill'. What is the point of the above sentence? What does it address?
Cars aren't designed for murder either,
They're not designed to kill, either.
but that's not much consolation to the family of some kids who were run down in a schoolyard by some loon, or to those whose lives were destroyed by a Walmart pressure cooker bomb in a Boston celebration, or the people in Oklahoma who died in the bombing of the federal building - a bomb made out of just diesel fuel and fertilizer.
And that is why there are strict rules in place regarding who can legally drive a car, mandatory liability insurance, vehicle registration etc. - and the police has its own branch to monitor that traffic rules are followed. Does that mean no one can commit vehicular homicide? No, of course not. But the rules in play greatly reduce the risk of that happening.
Now, if you insist on using this silly analogy, even though the comparison is monstrous at best (comparing a tool of necessity and convenience with a weapon intended to kill, Jesus Christ), then I take it you are for a much stricter gun control, and the effective elimination of the 2nd Amendment? Because driving a car is, after all, a privilege - not a right. Even though a car is many times more necessary than any weapon. After all, why should the rules be more strict for something that can be used to kill, even though it's not intended to, than something that is designed to kill?
Everywhere else in the Western world, gun ownership - like car ownership - is a privilege, not a right. And we are doing fine.
You clearly aren't American. This country was founded by people who believe in liberty and freedom of tyranny.
Which is irrelevant to the topic. Of historical interest to the 2nd Amendment, to be sure, but the 2nd Amendment has no place in modern society. The 2nd Amendment is nothing but an excuse you hide behind to justify your hobby.
In America, the government works for us.
You're not special in that regard. This is the case in every single country which is a democracy.
Guns protect us from tyranny
No they don't. If the military decided to subjugate the population, your guns would be useless. The military has more and better guns, not to mention air superiority and full control of the infrastructure. This isn't the 18th century.
and it's an acceptable risk we choose to take.
Absolutely not. It's as if you doused the country with poison every six months to keep tigers away. Sure, cancer rates would be soaring, "but you don't see any tigers, do you?"
Millions were murdered in the 20th century in Europe and Asia by governments who first disarmed the population.
No, this is not the case. You're thinking of Hitler in Europe, aren't you? He never disarmed the population. Just the opposite, in fact: the Versailles treaty placed restrictions on gun ownership, and Hitler relaxed those restrictions. The population was never disarmed. And sure, Jews were barred from obtaining firearms, but look at the Warsaw ghetto uprising: guns didn't help them. Modern tyrannies cannot be fought by guns. The only times resistance movements were effective during the war was when they had leadership from the British high command, who knew which targets to sabotage. Resistance groups that acted on their own only made things worse, because retaliation is a bitch. Also, remember the Iranian revolution in '79? While the guerrillas were armed, the population, by and large, was not. Yet the revolution was successful. A civilian population can never hope to fight the military on their terms. share
"If the military decided to subjugate the population, your guns would be useless."
Completely untrue. The U.S. military couldn't even subjugate an armed country as small as Iraq, with a population of under 30 million. The U.S. is over 22 times the area, and has over 300 million people with 393 million civilian guns.
With an unarmed population and the military shows up and tells you to get on the bus, you get on the bus.
With an armed population, they don't even attempt it.
Wow, so much wrong with your post that I don't intend to waste too much more time with this, so going point to point is useless. But some parting opinions:
The Jews had no guns. The Nazis disarmed their enemies. There weren't enough Jews even if they had guns to make a big difference, but at least they could have gone down fighting and taken some Nazis with them. I would rather die fighting for my country than be herded into a cattle car.
The Second Amendment is none of your business. You have no idea what it is to be an American. We used our guns to toss the Crown out of here in the 18th century with some help from the French.
If you don't think guns will prevent government tyranny, you're not only wrong, but are missing the point that no government has ever attempted tyranny on a population so heavily armed as the U.S.
Foreigners think every American walks around with a gun on his hip and there are shootouts in the streets. Removing statistics like accidents and suicides, most gun deaths take place in a few hot spots where guns are actually illegal. It's a cultural issue, not a gun issue in those areas, and we have (unfortunately) elected officials who do nothing about curbing violence of any kind. New York was one of the safest big cities in the world until about 10 years ago. A liberal mayor and governor stopped the active policing because it's "racist". Many arrested are given liberal parole or have the charges outright dismissed. This same political party is also the one that's trying to ban guns from the law abiding.
What it’s intended purpose was is irrelevant and a non-sequitur. The truth is you can just as easily kill someone with a car as you can a gun therefore cars should be banned before guns are. Also I am a law abiding citizen, I have no intention of killing anyone with my gun, taking it away isn’t going to help anyone. What we should be doing is training people on how to handle guns safely and what the law says about using them, so that they can protect themselves or others if they are ever in a situation to. We shouldn’t be vilifying anyone who dares to defend themselves with their own right to self defense.
sharewhat about cars? they kill people too...
yeah as a side effect.
a gun has no other useful purpose like a car , it cant drive you to the supermarket
actually cars dont kill, people driving do. same with guns, they are useless without bullets. why dont we regulate them like we do with cigarettes?
share"a gun has no other useful purpose like a car "
Wrong. Guns can be used to kill people, but they can also be used for protection and deterrence, without firing a shot.
And the most important deterrence is an armed population keeping the government honest. Which is the primary reason for the Second Amendment.
Who said you had to have a car? You have two legs you can walk so why not ban cars? Humans managed to survive for centuries without cars so why pretend they are a requirement to exist now? They aren't. You are simply one of those hypocrites that wants to ban things you don't like while keeping things you like even when what you like is more deadly than what you don't like. We need to ban alcohol and cars before banning guns as both cars and alcohol are responsible for deaths than guns.
shareI'm saying you have to weigh neccesity against danger.
Also thats stat is distorted.
cars might have more deaths but thats just cos they're used more than guns - because they are more useful
And if you add in necessity alcohol has zero so by that logic it should be banned completely.
shareI cant fault that logic.
I was gonna say "yeah but people alcohol only hurts the user, but thinking abiout it , thats not true"
Truth is people like it , so it would be a massive vote loser and never happen ,
a bit like gun control in the US.
That was my point. If saving lives was the end all be all reason for banning things then there are a lot of things that would vanish, many before guns. But in the end people factor in what they enjoy and what they grew up with and are used to. Alcohol is something people in most countries grow up with and while it kills lots of people the media doesn't bother to jump on all the deaths and destruction it causes so people don't even think about what it does. Once in a while you hear the media talking about a death from alcohol like when Amy Winehouse died, but even then they don't blame the alcohol they blame the person for making bad choices... which is funny since the same media covering a suicide by someone that uses a gun to kill themself will almost always jump on the gun was the reason bandwagon when common sense would say if someone was going to kill themself then they were going to do it with something and if not a gun then possibly pills or rope.
The real question unanswered in the US is why the media does this? Is it a conspiracy somewhere that is trying to eliminate the 2nd amendment in the US or are all the media just a bunch fo mindless lemmings that are following a leader for that for whatever reason went down the guns are bad road.
Also I’m not getting serious about anything you say until the left admits they were wrong about “defunding the police” because by the lefts standards:
A) I don’t have a right to police protection while they get tax payer funded security
B) Now that I don’t have a right to police protection I don’t have a right to defend myself which wouldn’t be as necessary if the left hadn’t taken away my right to police protection.
So as it stands basically by the lefts plan if someone wants to kill me there isn’t much I can do about it, I just have to let them kill me.
What about alcohol? In the US it kills about 3 times as many people annual as guns. The other problem with the gun death statistics is it also includes suicides which shouldn't be included at all as someone that is hell bent on killing themself is going to simply use another method. Most people don't realize that 60% of gun deaths are suicides, only 37% are murder. So when someone throws out the 12 in 100,000 number for gun deaths it really should be 4.8 per 100,000 because you don't have to worry about a suicide killing you that is a personal choice and isn't going to randomly happen to you.
In fact one could argue that if people are so concerned with gun deaths they should be spending more money and effort on suicide prevention. I mean if you could eliminate suicides you would cut the gun deaths by 60%. Instead we spend time worrying about school shooting or mass murders when they are insanely rare... of course the media gets off on following those stories and doesn't bother to report most suicides at all.
[deleted]
When pot was banned, you still were able to buy it and get stoned. Bans only stop responsible, law-abiding people from obtaining the banned items. Criminals probably would LOVE it if guns were banned, because they'd know their victims wouldn't be shooting back at them.
shareMost people aren’t criminals until they shoot though that’s the point.
They get into an argument with another person and instead of having a fight, they shoot each other.
How about if they are arguing because one of them wants the other one to get out of his house and stop raping his wife and stealing his stuff and waving that illegal banned handgun in his face?
shareThat is a made up scenario. In countries where guns are banned the death rates from guns are far far lower than the USA.
They should have never made the amendment. Everything has gone nuts since.
Maybe we should copy Mexico's gun laws, right? It's almost impossible to obtain a firearm legally in Mexico. There's ONE gun shop in the whole country! They sell a limited number of models and only in small calibers. To buy one, you must pay a load of money for a license, pay more for security clearances and wait years or months until you get to the top of the list.
Mexico 7.64 gun deaths per 100,000 people.
Better than the USA. Go for it.
That is a made up scenario. In countries where guns are banned the death rates from guns are far far lower than the USA.
Not only that, but burglary, assault and rape statistics aren't any worse, either. share
We made the amendment because of you motherfuckers. Read a book for a change.
shareAre you allowed outdoors without a helmet on?
share
Are you allowed outdoors without a helmet on?
I see what you mean, because, like, home invasions aren't a thing in reality, and even if they were, the victims shouldn't have any means to defend themselves. share
Yes and all the criminals will respect "gun free zones".
share"Most people aren’t criminals until they shoot though that’s the point.
They get into an argument with another person and instead of having a fight, they shoot each other."
So according to your statement, most gun-related deaths are from an argument where one guy has a gun and decides to use it instead of a fist. Is that really how you want to position yourself?
12.21 gun deaths per 100,000 people in the US.
0.23 gun deaths per 100,000 people in the UK.
Actually you have that backwards. Most criminals don't usually get guns until after they have started committing crimes. They start small and escalate as they get more aggressive.
shareThis is what I'm trying to get across to JBran. He thinks guns create criminals, where it's just a means to an end for criminals to use guns.
shareIf the guns are not there and they can only use a knife, a lot less deaths occur.
shareWhat if they realize that a knife isn't going to cut it and decide to use something besides a knife?
shareLike what? Something even less deadly.
shareThat argument against is so silly - you think it's either a knife or a gun. Less deadly.. what, a can opener?
What about a car? What about a bomb? What about a fire? Didn't some guys use a car to slaughter people in London and Nice?
If someone wants to KILL someone they can easily find a way that is less close and personal than a stupid knife. If those Columbine dorks wanted to go postal without guns don't you think they would have thought of something more than, 'let's go stabby stabby'?
How could the Columbine kids have got into a school and killed loads of people without guns?
Use your imagination - they killed 12 people. Imagine if they armored up a car and drove through a parking lot at lunch, or waited until graduation day when the entire senior class was sitting in the middle of the football field. They could have locked off part of the school and torched it. You don't think they could have killed 12 people? C'mon.
Heck, the guns weren't even the biggest part of their plan. If they weren't so stupid (thank God) they would have killed hundreds with bombs....
"In addition to the shootings, the attack involved several homemade bombs. Two of these were placed in the cafeteria, powerful enough to kill or seriously injure all people within the area, although they failed to detonate. Their cars in the parking lots were made into bombs which also failed to detonate, and at another location away from the school, two bombs were set up as diversions, only one of which partially detonated. The motive remains unclear; but Harris and Klebold planned the massacre for around a year, and hoped the massacre would cause the most deaths in U.S. history, which then meant exceeding the death toll of the Oklahoma City bombing; USA Today referred to the Columbine massacre as "planned as a grand, if badly implemented, terrorist bombing."[10]"
You can’t buy deadly bombs though, so they had to use legal deadly guns.
That’s the whole point.
No, the whole point is you said banning guns ends the slaughter and people will resort to knives, which will minimalize the damage.
It's being pointed out (excessively) that if someone wants to 'slaughter' people they will find something a lot more effective than running around with a Buck knife.
Do you not see the issue here is not guns? It is a peculiar mindset that so many people have devolved to. Human life seems to me mean nothing to so many people now. If there are no guns, someone will just get a knife, or acid (look at the UK and all the attacks in London).
shareI’m glad someone brought this up. If you try to go on a massacre with a knife you will kill 1-4 people tops before you are overpowered. Not dozens of people like in the US.
Thanks for proving my point.
And you entirely miss mine. Decades ago, you could mail order guns in the US...Mass shootings are a relatively recent thing. There is something very wrong with someone if they decide to try and take a life/lives. Mass shootings are carried out by very unstable individuals.
Let's face it. If you want to kill a lot of people and are too lazy to source a black market gun and lack the intellect for building an IED, there are other avenues someone would take before picking up a knife.
If there are no guns around due to the ban, you have to really think about a weapon. But then you calm down, and don’t go on a killing spree. So you grab a hammer or knife maybe. Still awful but not 40 deaths.
The reason these things happen is because the guns are right there in the family house.
Look at the facts it’s easy, hardly any gun deaths in the UK.
From what I gather, shootings where deaths get into double digits are actually quite rare in the US. I think there were 3 for instance in 2019 that went into double digits.
I really don't like the argument that "if there were no guns, deaths would be less as they would use a less dangerous implement". Of course, no one would disagree with that but it doesn't help with the root cause. Why now, are so many people unstable enough to think they need to end an argument with a gun or a knife, or acid? Something very wrong is going on in people's brains.
Trying to ban guns in the US would be like trying to ban alcohol or drugs. It would take decades, cost billions of $ and end up a gigantic failure.
It’s not just the mass shootings though it’s the many many small instances that drive the number up
Why would it take that long though. The USA is only 200 years old it can adapt and get in line with the rest of the developed world.
There is nothing to lose and there would be no civil war, people would just go to work and if people got into a fight, no guns would be drawn because carrying a gun is like something from the wild west.
Look at prohibition and the war on drugs...People will get what they want regardless of the law.
share‘Only in America’
Bad timing considering the mass shooting in Plymouth yesterday.
shareWorst shooting in a decade here.
Murder weapon was a shotgun and they are the only ones not banned.
‘Metro.co.uk can also reveal Davison, who claimed to have been born in America, subscribed to several US-based firearms channels, including ones providing training on how to use guns.’
fyi, you can own many firearms in the UK including AKs, ARs etc as long as they are bolt action/straight pull if we're talking centre fire rifles.
share"I’m glad someone brought this up. If you try to go on a massacre with a knife you will kill 1-4 people tops before you are overpowered. Not dozens of people like in the US."
Misleading. The vast majority of shooting death in the U.S. are one person shooting another person.
From here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
According to some studies, the United States has had more mass shootings than any other country, however they accounted for less than two-tenths of 1% (0.2%) of homicides between 2000 and 2016. Shooters generally either die by suicide afterwards or are restrained or killed by law enforcement officers or civilians.
And with both civilians and police unarmed (like they are in the UK), mass killings wouldn't be stopped as quickly. share
I'll agree that it's the mindset that's the main problem. Americans have the mindset that gun ownership is a right, not a privilege. And you hide behind the obsolete 2nd Amendment to excuse that mindset. Whereas in the rest of the civilised world, gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. And we are better off for it. Because the American mindset is responsible for the immense gun industry, and the insane proliferation of weapons to the point that no gun law can hope to get things under control. Banning guns in the US is not an option, because the market is over-saturated. Whereas in countries which have had sensible gun laws all this time, illegal guns are not easy to come by - and they cost a lot more as a consequence.
shareI think you'd be surprised how easy it is to acquire illegal firearms even in places like the UK with strict gun laws.
As for the US. There is no getting around it. Gun ownership is a right for most people. Should there be more restrictions? Absolutely. For instance I find it wild some people just leave guns inside vehicles that then get stolen. No safe/lock box or anything legally required. Other types of restrictions just seem a bit pointless as they're targeting criminals which will of course ignore them.
I think you'd be surprised how easy it is to acquire illegal firearms even in places like the UK with strict gun laws.
If you think I'd be surprised, then that proves my point right there. Sure it's easy if you know how to do it - that's true for all things in life. But how many regular citizens know how to acquire guns illegally? share
Do you know anyone that smokes weed and buys from a dealer? If so, you have your first link and phone call to getting a gun.
shareI actually don't.
The thing about buying an illegal gun, though, is that it's not something you're likely to do unless you're already contemplating a crime. It isn't something that happens on impulse. This means that a very large percentage of gun related crime - not to mention accidents - is not affected by the availability of illegal weapons.
Also, the fewer guns in circulation, the more expensive those illegal guns are going to be. This means that if a crime can be committed without guns, in all likelihood it will be committed without guns. This reduces the risk of lives being lost in the execution of the crime, and makes it safer to attempt apprehension of the criminal. And indeed, most gun crimes are still perpetrated with perfectly legal guns.
Anders Behring Breivik used only legally owned firearms on Utøya. He was able to perpetrate the crime because he was determined and had planned the attack for nearly a decade. We can never completely safeguard ourselves from such people. However, in the US it is possible for someone to snap and go on a killing spree, or prepare for one with only days of planning. That's why the US is uniquely plagued by, and particularly vulnerable to, mass shootings of all kinds. It happens once in a blue moon everywhere else - it happens with a great deal of regularity in the US. In Norway, the Utøya massacre on 22/7 (European date convention places the day first) was our 9/11. And while it was deadlier than any mass shooting in the US so far, a similar event in the US would soon be a footnote.
I agree. The chances are, if someone is buying an illegal gun, they're planning a crime. Expensive gun costs when less are in circulation are circumvented by gangs/criminals sharing guns. They get passed around and rented out for specific purposes.
Any gun restrictions will primarily impact law abiding citizens whilst the people actually being targeted laugh and carry on committing gun crime. How do you account for criminals ignoring laws?
Gun proliferation is part of the reason why gangs can flourish in the first place. Like I said, it's too late for the US, there is no quick fix. But strict gun laws do work in the rest of the Western world, where we have neither the gun crime nor the gangs that you have in the US. There are gangs, sure, but they're not nearly as many - nor as powerful.
And it's not just gun crime. Homicides, regardless of implement, are significantly higher in the US than in Europe. If the lack of guns simply made criminals choose a different tool, we wouldn't expect to see that. All of Europe is doing better for violent crime than the US, and you have to look to South America, Asia and Africa to find someone with worse statistics. You're a first world country with third world problems. Clearly, guns have not helped you.
I don't live in the US.
Anyway, the US is fairly unique when it comes to guns considering how and why the US came to be. They just need to adopt a zero tolerance approach to gun/violent crime imo. I'm fairly certain if you ramp up the punishments to silly levels, that will start to turn the tide.
Well thank God there was no one there who could defend them. Good job. You have blood on your hands. Yes, you, JBran. You are in part responsible for dead children who went to a movie theater where no law abiding citizen was allowed to carry a gun.
shareNah i don’t like the murder weapon, you do though so it’s your fault.
shareColorado law allows you to carry a concealed firearm if you were issued a valid concealed carry permit by the state, but no one shot the shooter in that movie theater, people just got slaughtered by a punk who was easily able to get firearms.
shareAs far as I know all moviehouses are no-carry zones.
shareI lived close by at the time, that was not a thing.
shareNobody shot back. Proves the whole point.
shareThere are hundreds of potential massacres that are AVOIDED every year because some armed individual intervened, and that's aside from the THOUSANDS of instances of routine self defense that occur every year.
shareEvidence of said massacre interventions?
sharehttps://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/jack-wilson-the-man-who-took-out-the-active-shooter-at-a-texas-church/287-6967b825-b74a-452d-a76a-c25bf559c20e
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/local/2018/10/24/louisville-jeffersontown-kroger-shooting-heres-what-we-know/1754676002/
https://www.foxnews.com/us/alabama-mcdonalds-gunman-killed-by-armed-dad-who-is-injured-in-shootout
And that, of course, is aside from all the times guns are used in defense of the home or person. Bear in mind "use" of a gun usually does not include firing the gun. I myself have had to use a gun to stop a burglar in my home. Happily, he did not force me to fire.
So the church killer had a gun and was shot with a gun. Guns guns guns. What if the killer never had a gun? That’s the main point.
The second link says that the racist shooter could have been stopped by a white guy but wasn’t, because ‘white’s don’t shoot white’s.’ The police caught the criminal it wasn’t a civilian with a gun.
In the last link that kid fired some shots in McDonald’s that never killed anybody, and the dad killed him. With a gun of course.
Even more avoidable gun deaths you have brought to my attention.
Really? Your arguments are "Guns guns guns" and the shooter in McDonald's didn't manage to kill anyone when he opened fire before he was taken out.
You're either an idiot, delusional, or completely disingenuous. I don't wish ill on you, but your tune will definitely change the first time some "kid" pulls a gun on you.
You sent the second link that claimed that someone stopped a massacre with a gun, when they didn’t at all. They let them walk free.
The insults are rolling in now.
If they banned guns, nobody would pull a gun on me. Which is the entire point of the post.
Class A drugs are banned, but that doesn't prevent people trading them.
shareBan guns? Great idea!! All the criminals would be first in line to turn theirs in!!
shareKind of like the gun amnesty in the UK in 1996 after the Dunblane massacre.
The UK now has a 0.23 gun related death rate per 100,000 people.
The US is 12.21 per 100,000. I rest my case.
So you honestly think criminals will turn in their guns?
shareThey aren’t criminals until they have used them that’s the point.
shareSo if a guy is robbing a store with a knife instead of a gun, he's not a criminal?
shareKnives are the weapon of choice of bad dudes in the UK and that’s why you don’t get mass killings, 3 max killings per knife.
You can’t kill more than 2 with a blade before you get overpowered.
So if a guy is robbing a store with a knife instead of a gun, he's not a criminal?
If a criminal can't use a gun they will use something else - a knife, a bomb, a car, etc... For instance, the worst terrorist act in US history wasn't with a gun, but with a plane hijacked with box cutters - almost 3,000 dead and 9,000 injured.
You must have misread. A crime is a crime.
You can’t go on a massacre with a knife. When was the last time a US citizen used a bomb to kill somebody?
I'm sure there have been plenty since, but off the top of my head, Tim McVeigh used a bomb to kill around 175 people in Oklahoma City.
Another is Richard Reid - he was the shoe bomber that tried to blow up an airplane with a couple hundred people on board. There was also a guy called the Unabomber that killed a few people...
The Boston Marathon bombing is another example.
shareRichard Reid tried? But he failed. No deaths.
From your memory you got like 200 deaths over the decades.
More than 100 people die each day due to guns. Each day.
A criminal with a knife is less dangerous than a criminal with a gun. If you disagree, then what does it matter to you if those useless guns are banned?
shareI hunt on occasion. I also like going to the range and shooting guns - my family has had guns passed through generations. I also like having a gun around for home defense.
Why don't you hunt with a knife?
shareI'm liberal, have never even held a gun, and do not believe in the 2nd amendment. I also find the idea of a gun ban incredibly insulting and your reply is a great example of why. It highlights responsible gun use/ownership as well as their cultural importance in this country. A ban on guns is crazy, not mention hilariously impossible to execute.
shareBanning slavery was hilariously impossible at the time, but the USA caught up with the rest of the developed world eventually.
shareIt caused a civil war. That's exactly what would happen again if guns were banned. No thank you.
shareNever happened in the UK, people just handed them over.
shareIdiot. You don’t even know your own history. The government bought their freedom.
And the US Civil War wasn’t fought over slavery.
You’re very angry i can’t keep up with your many nasty replies to my posts.
But you are wrong. That’s why you are angry.
I have no patience for ignorant people like yourself. Engage whatever brain you have for two minutes. You are talking about taking away not only MY RIGHTS and my right to defend myself and my family but my property. A right that people fought and died to earn and have fought and died since to keep. You don't think that makes people angry? You have no idea what anger is. The depth and breadth of your stupidity is greater than you can even comprehend. This is the polite version of this conversation. The impolite version has no words at all. Understand?
shareThis is the problem. Nobody in America ever ‘defended their property’ with a gun. This is a weird thing you believe.
The guns just get used to shoot each other when an argument and fist fight would happen in more civilised countries.
Literally nothing you believe is true. That's how much of a fool you are.
shareIt’s funny how you have zero evidence, so you go on the offence.
Your whole world fell apart.
Guy I go to church with defended his home and family when he shot a home invader that was high on drugs. Next dumb question. This shit happens literally every day. Where you get your idea that it doesn't, is beyond me.
shareSo instead of tackling home invader who was high on drugs and unarmed and get him to jail and the help he needs, he shot him.
The worst part is that you believe in God, a fairy tale.
Who said he was unarmed?
I'm so glad we have such brilliant know-it-alls like you who can not only share their infinite opinions on subjects they know absolutely nothing about but that you can shoot down thousands of years of religion as well. You're a pathetic, misguided, seemingly worthless human being. You're as arrogant as you are stupid and I'm all the less for having had this exchange with you.
[deleted]
Yeah, uh, good one?
So I read all your replies today... you seriously lost all your credibility and with this last 'doozie' you've clearly exhausted your argument.
You're like that person who says "gas sucks let's get rid of it" without a real thought into what you're suggesting.
The fact is from looking through this thread you have zero real understanding (using one simple stat and running with it multiple times). You don't have any argument to stats that prove your numbers are insanely inflated (suicides), you don't have real answers to authentic questions (what if they don't use a knife but something worse), and are now just tossing in something stupid just to try to have the last say.
If anything I think more people from this post are aware that guns should NOT be banned.
[deleted]
It was an asinine question. Try to hunt a duck with a knife. You really dipped into this without knowing a thing about guns, who uses them, why they use them as a tool, etc. Now you look more and more inept as you go.
You don't answer the questions based on any stats - you have simply sidestepped off one stat that has been proven false. The suicide question is particular is classic - you're avoiding the point because you don't want to look the fool and say in one post you don't care about suicide then in another you add it to your argument.
"This aint about suicide, they need better mental health awareness.
This is about banning guns to end the slaughters."
Then:
"My mind is made up get rid of the guns get rid of most of the suicides get rid of the guns get rid of most of the murders.
It’s easy just get rid."
This is baffling and illogical. You stand behind it until someone points out about Japan, then you say you don't care about the suicide stat because it (again) proves you're wrong.
Somehow you also say getting rid of guns will suddenly get rid of suicides too. Clearly, you know nothing about suicidal people.
"It's easy just get rid."
This is a great saying we should all get behind. Let's start by getting rid of alcohol. Excessive alcohol use is responsible for more than 95,000 annual deaths in the US. In all of 2020 gun violence didn't even reach 20,000.
Using your logic alcohol only causes harm and screw those who just enjoy it responsibly or use it to make a living. "It's easy just get rid"
Heck, we should get rid of motorcycles too - they are unnecessary and cause a lot of needless deaths and injuries. Forget how people use them for fun. This is for the best.
Man, I could go on all day.... "It's easy just get rid" should be the motto of the US going forward.
How the hell do you have fun using a gun? You can have fun with booze at least.
Speaking of mottos I have a new motto for the US…
‘Make America Great Britain Again’
So your stance has nothing to do with how many people are killed, but how much fun you, JBran, can have with it.
Good to know where you actually stand.
Liberals ALWAYS talk about gun bans that will stop law-abiding citizens from buying firearms. They NEVER talk about going into the ghettos and confiscating illegal guns from the criminals or enacting harsher laws and penalties.
This tells me that gun control has NOTHING to do with preventing violent crime and EVERYTHING to do with disarming the Conservative population.
What are you on about? Just look at the facts.
UK banned guns: 0.23 gun deaths per 100,000.
USA no ban: 12.21 gun deaths per 100,000.
Make up what you want to justify it.
I'll try this again: So you honestly think criminals will turn in their guns? Yes or no.
shareIrrelevant. Fewer guns in circulation means fewer guns for criminals as well. Gun amnesty worked in the UK, something you failed to address.
shareIt's not remotely irrelevant. You say to ban guns now. What about the MILLIONS of guns out there? How do you address that?
shareI didn't say to ban guns. I addressed your argument, which addressed a UK situation. If you read my other posts in this thread you'll see that I argue against banning guns in the US, because of the over-saturated market there. There is no quick fix. The US has a gun problem that will take decades, at minimum, to take care of.
shareNo, the civilians have them all. Will you turn yours in?
shareThe point is, there are already MILLIONS of guns in the USA. How would you "ban guns"? The USA is a gun culture and is used to freedom, unlike the UK where the populace cannot even carry a pen knife. You ban guns in the USA and you get an armed insurrection and if you even get any guns from the people, it's strictly from those who would never have used them for crime in the first place.
America has a huge criminal population who would never give up their guns and who would be positively gleeful if the law abiding population was disarmed..
It's an exhausting, never-ending argument that just needs to stop. No way will guns be banned in the U.S. It's a fundamental right in the constitution and getting that out will cause so much division that it will never be ratified. People just like to bring it up because it makes them feel somehow righteous.
Guns don't kill people any more than cars kill people.
As a matter of fact, why people don't argue more for forced breathalizer before a car starts than guns is beyond me. That would save a lot of lives and won't have to be taken to the Supreme Court.
What you don’t get is that it was an amendment in the constitution to own guns, it was not there in the first place.
A bunch of clowns brought it in and there has been chaos since.
The “clowns” that passed the 2nd amendment were the same “clowns” that wrote the Constitution itself. Is was included among the first 10 amendments, which were all passed at the same time and became known as the Bill of Rights. These were passed four years after the ratification on the Constitution itself.
Some of the other amendments these “clowns” passed at the same time are little things, like freedom of speech, religion, the press, and the right to assemble. The right not to incriminate yourself. The right to a speedy trial. Little, trivial stuff like that.
I don’t know…. Those “clowns” seem pretty wise to me.
You can discuss the validity of the 2nd amendment in modern times all you wish, but to make it seem as this was some kind of newly added provision passed by “clowns” is entirely disingenuous.
It was there in the first place, it's #2 in the Bill of Rights. God, get a fucking clue.
History lesson, the Brits disarmed the colonists (just as they have their subjects at home) so they could more easily control and victimize them. THAT is the reason for the Amendment in the first place. So we would never again be subjugated by the likes of YOU.
Enjoy shooting each other stupid scared shooter guy.
shareA gun amnesty is the way, worked in the UK. Although America are a few years behind.
shareI have a better idea, why don’t we just enforce the laws we already have , why don’t we stop defunding the police and how about telling KKKamala to stop bailing out violent offenders
shareOr you could stop shooting each other over a nervous argument and claiming self defence?
12.21 gun deaths per 100,000 people in the US.
0.23 gun deaths per 100,000 people in the UK.
I have never shot a single person in my life and I don’t intend to.
However if you punish people by throwing them in prison for shooting people then others are less likely to do it. We are not currently doing it and therefore we should not be talking about gun control at all until we actually start punishing people for gun violence. The left has no moral authority in this instance as they are actively advocating for violent criminals while innocent victims are murdered.
Also you are clearly ignorant on how self defense laws work. You are not allowed to shoot anyone over a “nervous argument”, you are only allowed to respond with deadly force when are you threatened with deadly force and even then you are still probably going to be arrested and will more than likely have to prove that you had a justified reason to use deadly force. Educate yourself next time, kiddo. In this country the law does not allow anyone to shoot someone over a “nervous argument”.
Get rid of the guns, get rid of gun violence.
Look at the figures.
It’s so easy the rest of the world who banned them have done it but half of America are obsessed with the amendment like it’s a passage in the bible or something.
Or maybe don’t let violent criminals out of prison, maybe we shouldn’t defund the police. The left literally wants to reward people who murder innocent people. You need to stop with your lies and misinformation, movie chat needs to censor or ban you.
You last paragraph is baseless speculation and shouldn’t be considered
12.21 gun deaths per 100,000 people in the US.
0.23 gun deaths per 100,000 people in the UK.
How about those facts you don’t like?
Tell me, does the UK reward people who break the law?
Does the UK want to defund the police?
Do political leaders in the UK bail out violent criminals?
Does the UK demonize and attack their own police force for doing their job?
Does the UK refuse to prosecute looters who steal less than $1000?
Does the UK invite illegal immigrants, many of whom are drug dealers and child traffickers?
Does the UK have a president/prime minister who incites violence against the cops?
Apples and oranges numb nuts.
JBran,
You keep using this:
12.21 gun deaths per 100,000 people in the US.
0.23 gun deaths per 100,000 people in the UK.
Do you know that 2/3 of those 12.21 deaths are suicide?
I also think the rate is more like 10 deaths per 100K, including suicides and the shit holes in Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia where the police are standing down and letting anarchy reign (by political directives of the liberal mayors).
New York 10 years ago was the safest big city in the world to to active police work including stop and frisk, now I won't go to New York if you paid me. Who suffers? The people in those big cities. Those of us in the suburbs don't even lock our doors at nights, and nearly everyone has a gun. Our police chief told me that in my town of 10,000, about 70 percent are licensed gun owners. The last murder in our town was a guy who banged his wife over the head with a baseball bat and dumped her body two towns over.
Get rid of the guns and suicide is a lot harder process to go through.
share
Get rid of the guns and suicide is a lot harder process to go through.
Get rid of the guns, get rid of the madness.
Japan has very strict gun laws and yet its overall suicide rate is about twice that of the US. share
This aint about suicide, they need better mental health awareness.
This is about banning guns to end the slaughters.
This aint about suicide, they need better mental health awareness.
This is about banning guns to end the slaughters.
I quoted your post where you said that getting rid of guns would help with the American suicide rate.
And it is about suicide because that accounts for about two thirds of the gun deaths in the US.
Make up your mind. share
My mind is made up get rid of the guns get rid of most of the suicides get rid of the guns get rid of most of the murders.
It’s easy just get rid.
My mind is made up get rid of the guns get rid of most of the suicides get rid of the guns get rid of most of the murders.
It’s easy just get rid.
My mind is made up get rid of the guns get rid of most of the suicides
Yes; I see that your mind is made up about guns, but you failed to address my point about Japan.
The Japanese suicide rate is about twice that of the US.
Guns in civilian hands are rare in Japan.
Following your logic, The Japanese suicide rate should be far lower than that of the US, but it isn't.
Can you please explain this? share
Different cultures and different ways to commit suicide.
But even in the US suicides are not only related to guns. What about this "vessel" in New York I read about?
I'd very much like to see JBran's response to my point about Japan.
If what he says about banning guns reducing the US suicide rate is so, then how does he explain the situation in Japan with the high Japanese suicide rate coupled with their relatively low number of guns?
Here’s my response:
It’s got nothing to do with suicides in Japan, where suicide has been seen as honourable to them for centuries.
It’s about stopping people from easily killing each other and themselves with guns in the USA.
Here’s my response:
It’s got nothing to do with suicides in Japan, where suicide has been seen as honourable to them for centuries.
It’s about stopping people from easily killing each other and themselves with guns in the USA.
You have yet to answer my question.
Assuming that one could just do what you seem to advocate why would other means of suicide not be utilized? Japan has relatively few guns, yet the Japanese suicide rate is about twice that of the US.
You say that getting rid of guns would reduce the number of suicides, but the example of Japan tells me that that is not the case, that other means would be used. share
If Japan actually had guns readily available like the US has, then the suicides would be far worse.
And if the USA had no guns like Japan the UK and the rest of the civilised world, the murders would be far fewer.
That is an assumption on your part.
Also, I note that you have yet to answer my question so, after four months, I'm forced to assume that you can't.
In any event, getting rid of guns here is a pipe dream. In spite of the media's (and folks such as you) best efforts, we will very likely still have our guns long after we are gone.
I wish you well. But not, of course, in this endeavor.
You can easily google Japan and it’s honour suicide culture. Pete tried to tell you about different cultures but you would not listen.
Goodbye too, best of luck with everything.