US Gun Laws

[Cornish Steve]

The vast majority of gun deaths are suicides and the result of domestic disputes. In either case, the shooter would have simply used a different weapon to achieve their goal. Again, don't get me wrong: I would like to see the more extreme weapons banned and tighter background checks; however, the image of the US being like the Wild West is far from the truth.

[Blue 250]

 

I'm not sure where you live, but, having lived almost 30 years in the US, I don't know anyone who has ever had their house burgled - and I've lived in Massachusetts, Florida, and Georgia and have friends in many other states. When we moved to the Atlanta area and were house-hunting, we noticed that several homes had no locks on the doors. When we visited friends in Nebraska, no one in the entire town had locks on their homes. 'Home invasions', as they are called, around here make it to the main news headlines.

 

Staying with family in Washington State north of Seattle, they hardly ever locked their front door and often left their vehicles unlocked.Was a bit like when I was a kid here in England.

[MikeO]

I'm not sure where you live, but, having lived almost 30 years in the US, I don't know anyone who has ever had their house burgled - and I've lived in Massachusetts, Florida, and Georgia and have friends in many other states. When we moved to the Atlanta area and were house-hunting, we noticed that several homes had no locks on the doors. When we visited friends in Nebraska, no one in the entire town had locks on their homes. 'Home invasions', as they are called, around here make it to the main news headlines.

Is that relevant? I've lived in the UK for fifty plus years and I don't know anyone who's had their house burgled either . So that's not down to guns or the lack of them surely, just means you live in a decent area?

[Sibdane]

I only lock my house if I leave it. I usually always lock my car regardless of where I am. My house is in a safe neighborhood though, so I really don't have much to worry about (knock on wood) crime-wise.

 

I agree that domestic disputes and suicides will generally happen regardless of the type of weapon available, but let's see how far someone gets when they attempt a mass killing spree with a tire-iron, and let us not forget that over 80% of guns in mass shootings were obtained legally.

 

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/09/there-will-be-another-mass-shooting/69508/

[Sibdane]

I guess the weapon of choice after guns for mass-killings would be home-made bombs; however, their creation runs the risk of harming the creator during the process, so they're not the ideal choice.

[Cornish Steve]

Far more people are killed each year as a result of drowning in swimming pools. Why not limit the use of swimming pools? It would be time and effort much better spent. The problem, of course, is that there are no mass drownings to fuel the media drumbeat for government action.

 

Then there's the holy grail of alcohol consumption. How many people are killed and injured every year as a result of drunk driving or drunken attacks? Is the answer to ban the sale of all alcohol and punish sensible drinkers because of those who insist on driving drunk? Is it to limit everyone to beer and no spirits or to no more than one half-glass of beer per week? Such thinking would be laughed at - so why the difference with guns?

Edited September 23, 2013 by Cornish Steve

[Sibdane]

A good comment from the article I posted above:

 

"Your personal experiences that shape your view are not empirical evidence of a trend or even correlation necessarily. Also it is evident that areas of higher population density, less educational and economic opportunity, when coupled with easily available guns the shootings go up. Everybody having a gun without psychological testing is likely going to increase the incidence of using those guns on each other. The idea of arming everybody as a serious proposal is just as ludicrous and unworkable as disarming everybody. Neither is a solution to gun violence in our country, but more sensible control over access to guns, such as a required background check on every sale private or commercial, is a good start. Follow that up with increased funding to the NIC system and add penalties for states not reporting records to the system in a timely manner. I think we should increase funding to and ease availability of mental health services as well. Just getting everyone a gun is not the answer and will only exacerbate the problem of using guns to settle grievances."

[Sibdane]

Far more people are killed each year as a result of drowning in swimming pools. Why not limit the use of swimming pools? It would be time and effort much better spent. The problem, of course, is that there are no mass drownings to fuel the media drumbeat for government action.

 

Then there's the holy grail of alcohol consumption. How many people are killed and injured every year as a result of drunk driving or drunken attacks? Is the answer to ban the sale of all alcohol and punish sensible drinkers because of those who insist on driving drunk? Is it to limit everyone to beer and no spirits or to no more than one half-glass of beer per week? Such thinking would be laughed at - so why the difference with guns?

 

1. Last I checked, people weren't buying swimming pools to kill other people. In other words, people don't intentionally drown on purpose or use them to harm others. Ahead of drowning as a cause of death is falling -- should we ban people from walking just to prove a point?

 

2. Just like guns, alcohol is also abused, but the same would happen if you tried to ban guns like it did with alcohol: the market(black) would still exist. Think of prohibition in the 1920s as an example. I think the answer would be proper regulation without loopholes (which I think we agree on).

Edited September 23, 2013 by TonkaRoost

[EvertonianFL]

 

I'm not sure where you live, but, having lived almost 30 years in the US, I don't know anyone who has ever had their house burgled - and I've lived in Massachusetts, Florida, and Georgia and have friends in many other states. When we moved to the Atlanta area and were house-hunting, we noticed that several homes had no locks on the doors. When we visited friends in Nebraska, no one in the entire town had locks on their homes. 'Home invasions', as they are called, around here make it to the main news headlines.

Where in those states have you lived? I have lived in New York, Florida and Virginia, and I know homes that have been robbed in all three states. Do you never watch the news? Armed home break-ins are rather common. In fact, this was just national news last week about an armed robbery in Georgia. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/18/20541884-authorities-search-for-14-year-old-georgia-girl-abducted-by-armed-robbers?lite

 

Lucky for you never never having even heard of a robbery in the States. That seriously blows my mind. Without guns, there would still be robberies, so the point is moot

[StevO]

As much as opinion is divided in the states, surely no one can make a valid point as to why any military grade weapons are needed outside of the military? Surely pistols, and at most riffles, are enough?

 

Chris Rock had it right all them years ago. Bullets are too cheap. Make a bullet $5,000 and watch how fast gun crime drops, no stray bullets hitting bystanders for $5,000.

 

Here it is:

Edited September 24, 2013 by StevO

[Cornish Steve]

In fact, this was just national news last week about an armed robbery in Georgia. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/18/20541884-authorities-search-for-14-year-old-georgia-girl-abducted-by-armed-robbers?lite

 

Lucky for you never never having even heard of a robbery in the States. That seriously blows my mind. Without guns, there would still be robberies, so the point is moot

 

I have no doubt that in some parts of every state there are many burglaries, but there are other places where it's headline news. It's rather ironic that the states you list (such as New York) have stricter gun laws. As I mentioned, a town near us has one of the lowest break-in rates in the country, and it's no accident that home-owners are legally obliged to keep a gun in the house. Who would break into a house when the owner has the right to shoot them on the spot?

[Cornish Steve]

As much as opinion is divided in the states, surely no one can make a valid point as to why any military grade weapons are needed outside of the military? Surely pistols, and at most riffles, are enough?

 

You should watch that Penn & Teller video. It's because citizens are invited - indeed expected - to distrust government. If only the army have the most powerful weapons, what's to stop the government from riding over the people? I don't buy into this argument in the current age, but that is the reason for the Second Amendment right to own a gun. Government officials are public servants; when they misuse power, citizens have the right, and therefore need the means, to overthrow them.

[Dalziel Kane]

I felt at certain times tonight (indeed throughout much of today) I could shoot someone or go on a rampage - but there's a big difference in playing things out in your head and actually doing an atrocity. When I resided in the United States, a number of people owned firearms, primarily for home defense, but it seems more and more now they're being put to more nefarious purposes.

 

I'm all for the idea that store owners should have a weapon rather than a panic button, and also all for the idea that only law enforcement should carry firearms although in some states it's legal to carry a firearm in your vehicle, although not on display. There crackdown on firearms misuse and control in the US will rage on long after I've departed and can't see any solution anytime soon. It's a lot more difficult to purchase a weapon in the UK but the availability back home with always be a burning debate, and when people with issues (such as the Batman premier in Denver a year or two ago) decide to take out their frustrations, then questions will have to be asked. Be worthwhile if something is actually fucking done about it rather than ideas and presentations.

[Cornish Steve]

I felt at certain times tonight (indeed throughout much of today) I could shoot someone or go on a rampage - but there's a big difference in playing things out in your head and actually doing an atrocity. When I resided in the United States, a number of people owned firearms, primarily for home defense, but it seems more and more now they're being put to more nefarious purposes

 

Overall, the number of people killed in mass killings, which of course hit the news headlines for days, is really small. Don't get me wrong: It's still tragic and heartbreaking. Nonetheless, many more are killed in drunk driving incidents, through drug use, through drownings, and so on. It's like terrorism: the high-visibility atrocities cause us to take things very much out of proportion.

 

Stats show that gun deaths are decreasing. It's only the media that likes to persuade us the problem is getting worse.

[JoeQuince]

I'll chime in here. The problem isn't guns per se, but the militarization of US culture. Stricter gun laws won't matter as long as guns are valorized and the military, essentially a collection of paid murderers, is looked upon with such unwavering respect. All of this trickles down to every aspect of culture here. Also, taking guns away won't decrease the amount of violence in the US. It will possibly decrease the severity and capabilities of violence, but it won't affect whether or not people commit violent crimes. (Unless people decide not to hurt each other in messier, more personal ways, I don't know)

 

Don't turn this into "good guys with guns" vs "bad guys with guns" argument. If you believe there are two sides, good guys and bad guys, in your world, then you're probably living inside a comic book.

 

Also, who the hell doesn't lock their door? Where do you live, Utah? In Pennsylvania and New York, we lock our doors. Burglaries happen everywhere I've lived. Every car I've owned, except for one, has had its windows smashed out for the stereo or whatever else might be inside.

[Sibdane]

I'll chime in here. The problem isn't guns per se, but the militarization of US culture. Stricter gun laws won't matter as long as guns are valorized and the military, essentially a collection of paid murderers, is looked upon with such unwavering respect. All of this trickles down to every aspect of culture here. Also, taking guns away won't decrease the amount of violence in the US. It will possibly decrease the severity and capabilities of violence, but it won't affect whether or not people commit violent crimes. (Unless people decide not to hurt each other in messier, more personal ways, I don't know)

 

Don't turn this into "good guys with guns" vs "bad guys with guns" argument. If you believe there are two sides, good guys and bad guys, in your world, then you're probably living inside a comic book.

 

Also, who the hell doesn't lock their door? Where do you live, Utah? In Pennsylvania and New York, we lock our doors. Burglaries happen everywhere I've lived. Every car I've owned, except for one, has had its windows smashed out for the stereo or whatever else might be inside.

 

That's a bit harsh, but I won't go further into that.

 

 

I live in a smaller city in Mississippi (population size roughly 60,000). There's a lot of space between homes here, so generally there's no need to lock doors like you would in the city. I'm not saying that burglaries don't happen -- Jackson (the capital) has a terrible crime rate and is only about 2 hours from my house -- but most places here are fairly rural with a small, dense core that is usually defined by its "Main Street." I still lock my doors when I leave the house, though burglars would need to worry about my dog if they decided to enter if I didn't.

[Cornish Steve]

Stricter gun laws won't matter as long as guns are valorized and the military, essentially a collection of paid murderers, is looked upon with such unwavering respect

 

I respect any young person who puts their life in harm's way to protect my way of life. Maybe I'm biased, because my brother is a major in the army, but every soldier I know is someone worthy of respect.

[JoeQuince]

 

I respect any young person who puts their life in harm's way to protect my way of life. Maybe I'm biased, because my brother is a major in the army, but every soldier I know is someone worthy of respect.

It's a tough thing for me to deal with. There are some people I know, and genuinely like/care for, who are in the armed forces. But, mostly what I see is poor kids who aren't going to "make it" in some other way. I hate that the army is touted as a career option. It's fucked up. Every friend I've seen come back from there has been completely screwed up afterwards. I feel bad for a lot of the people in the service. But, it doesn't change what they do.

 

I also don't think the army needs to be elsewhere in the world to protect my way of life. I see that rhetoric as something which distracts us from the reality of what US wars are fought for. Unless by "my way of life" we mean "my ability to fill my car with gas and get from point a to point b".