Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Given recent events, I'd like to share what my opinion is on the matter, and learn what others opinions are in the process.

First, I wanna point out that the "nuclear option" of outright banning guns is A: something I don't think would actually work, and B: Something I'm personally against (Disclosure: I don't actually own any firearms)

However, I have to say it's odd, probably a bit of a problem that the US is the only country (that I know off) that doesn't not require a citizen to have a license to own a gun, yet we require a license to drive a car.

In my honest opinion, here's how I see it. If someone wants to have a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round (or higher) mag, fine, but have there be laws equivalent to the restrictions of owning and driving a car. (Registration, passing a safety/aptitude test, etc.) And like driving a car, where having a high-end car is legal, I think high-end firearms should be legal (fully auto is where I draw the line, but those are already illegal anyways)

Fun fact: The only 2 countries that I know of that permit fully automatic weapons to citizens is Iraq and Pakistan. Citizens still need a license for them though.

I realize I'm exposing myself to a shitstorm here, but I'd like to reiterate that I want know what others think of my thoughts, and I want to hear what others have to say in general.

I'll just say that I don't understand the "criminals will still have guns even if they are illegal" thing. If guns were out right illegal, then yea, guns would still exist, but some petty criminal isn't going to spend $5000+ on a hand gun in the black market just to rob a gas station. Banning guns would limit guns to only the richer criminal.

Also, what is it with pro-gun/pro open carry people who always say stuff like "Well, If i had my gun with me in that situation I could have just shot the bad guy and saved the day!" Like, how would they even know who the original shooter even was? I can't possibly see a situation where more guns could solve the problem.

Seeing how the majority of guns used in crimes are stolen, or purchased off the black market, while some ideas regarding gun control are good, it won't do much to stop shootings, yet every time one happens, people scream "More regulations!" and "Ban all guns!" without even thinking about the situation at all. Too many people are letting their emotions run their opinions, and I find too many people on both sides of the debate have no idea what they are talking about. They look at gun related homicide numbers without looking at total homicide numbers, and sometimes use the "all people killed by guns" statistic like it counts all gun homicides when like 60% of that number is suicides.

I really hate the gun debate because too many people know too little about what they are talking about, let their emotions run wild, and honestly, are taking discussion away from actual solutions that might actually help the situation.

Oh, and I love the people from other countries who love to shit on America every time this happens like murder doesn't happen in their country, who go "Look at this country that actually has a higher murder rate than America but a lower gun death rate! It's much safer because it has gun bans! lol stupid americans!"

Edit "I’ll just say that I don’t understand the “criminals will still have guns even if they are illegal” thing. If guns were out right illegal, then yea, guns would still exist, but some petty criminal isn’t going to spend $5000+ on a hand gun in the black market just to rob a gas station."

You can get an AK-47 in California for $400
Many guns are just $100-200 more expensive than retail
If they can afford a gun legally, they can afford a gun illegally.

All I want to point out is that the most recent event had little to nothing to do with gun control as far as I am concerned. It had everything to do with International terrorist groups radicalizing people within in the US itself.

I'd rather see that discussed instead but that's just me. I've had the gun control discussion each and every single time a shooting incident occurred in the US. It's done to death

More control on gun ownership might discourage school shootings somewhat, but it certainly wont sway hostile attitudes from overseas that vilify Americans and encourage people to attack them. This is my problem with the gun control debate. I'm not against better security from violent shooters, but focusing on the guns alone misses the point every time. Blaming the problem on the wrong cause and conveniently scapegoating the real culprits.

Actually most guns used by criminals are already purchased illegally. Illegal fire arms come across the border, and they receive a lot of it from corrupt gun-runners that work for gun manufacturers. Russia, France, and the US are the largest suppliers of these guns.

The problem here is that if you are taking the guns away from ordinary citizens who are buying this legally, assuming that it will also take away the guns away from those that are attaining it illegally, then all you are really doing is making your citizens more vulnerable.

"I can’t possibly see a situation where more guns could solve the problem."

Oct. 1, 1997
Luke Woodham fatally stabbed his mother at home before opening fire at his high school, killing two students and injuring seven others. The attack was stopped when Assistant Principal Joel Myrick retrieved his .45 caliber handgun from his truck and confronted Woodham, detaining him until authorities could arrive.

April 24, 1998
A 14-year-old student showed up to his middle school dance carrying a .25-caliber pistol. He opened fire inside the dance, killing one teacher and wounding another as well as two students. The rampage ended when James Strand, owner of the banquet hall the dance was happening in, grabbed his personal shotgun and confronted the 14-year-old killer. Strand held the teen at gunpoint for 11 minutes before finally getting him to drop the weapon and lie on the ground and searching him for additional weapons.

Jan. 16, 2002
A 43-year-old former student armed with a .380 handgun killed Dean Anthony Sutin and Professor Thomas Blackwell with point blank shots and went on to kill fellow student Angela Dales as well as wounding three others before being confronted at gunpoint by law students Tracy Bridges, a county sheriff’s deputy, and Mikael Gross, a police officer, after retrieving their personal handguns from their vehicles. The gunman was then apprehended by other students.

Dec. 9, 2007
2 parishioners were killed and 3 wounded when a gunman toting a Bushmaster AR-15 opened fire at New Hope Church. Hearing the rifle fire, Jeanne Assam grabbed her personal concealed carry firearm and confronted the gunman from a distance of 20 yards.

May 27, 2010
A 79-year-old man entered an AT&T store in New York Mills, New York carrying a .357 magnum revolver in his hand and a list of employees he planned to kill in his pocket. Hearing the hand cannon go off, Donald J. Moore drew his own personal weapon and killed the gunman before he could complete his plan. One employee was wounded in the shooting.

March 25, 2012
Aaron Guyton was inside the recreation building of his grandfather’s church when he saw Jessie Gates, a member of the congregation, pulling a shotgun from his vehicle. Guyton leapt into action, locking the doors to the church where services were going on. Gates kicked in the door and pointed the shotgun at Rev. Henry Guyton and several parishioners. Drawing his concealed handgun, the younger Guyton held Gates at gunpoint while two members of the church took him to the ground. Rev. Guyton then took the shotgun from his hand.

Here are just a few examples.

In a country where guns are legal, its cheap to get guns illegally?
I am shocked.

That first link even says "Arms traffickers purchase the AK-47s in neighboring Nevada and resell them within California."
So what are you talking about?

I completely honestly don't see your point.
Maybe I need to restate what I said

If guns where illegal in the US, fewer people would own guns since they would be harder to find since they would stop being produced, therefore, guns would cost much more. If guns where illegal, who would criminals be stealing guns from? Not from the average joe like they might now.

@Chewybunny

>*Actually most guns used by criminals are already purchased illegally*
Yea, in a country where guns are legal. Its ridiculous to say "Guns are legal and people buy them illegally, so it would all still be the same if guns were outlawed!".

Woah, A whole 6 stories over the past 15 years.
I wonder how many kids die each year in the US from accidental gun deaths
lets see..
oh! here we go!
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/15/9539263/children-die-accidental-shootings
110 US children die in accidental shootings each year

Also, I want to point out one of the stories
*Hearing the hand cannon go off, Donald J. Moore drew his own personal weapon and killed the gunman before he could complete his plan. *
So, how, exactly, does Moore know who the original gunman is? Do you not see the problem? Moore shoots the original gunman, then another "hero" comes in, hearing the two gun shots, and sees this gunman! So he shoots Moore.
It only gets worse when you factor in crowded areas, then the "hero" ends up causing even more damage from collateral damage.

I'm sick of this debate. It comes up after every mass shooting (that is, every week or so), and it goes nowhere literally every time. I've just stopped bothering by this point.

IMO, a better solution to shootings and extremism would be better mental health. If we can better understand and treat potential shooters or extremists, we won't have to worry about guns in the first place.

@Ryumaru

The issue with the gun black market is that the legalities of guns differ between states. Any old criminal can buy a bunch of guns in a state where they're legal (or get a surrogate to do it), drive to a state with stricter gun control, and sell them there at a couple hundred dollars markup. The main issue is not so much "gun control exists" as "gun control isn't universal."

@Chewy

Guns are used in self-defense in only 0.9% of crimes.

Guns on the Black Market aren't stolen from average joes, they are smuggled from across the border. A law banning guns would not stop that stream of guns, the only reason the price might rise is because the demand might go up, that is if the amount of smugglers don't increase from the new law. Banning guns won't do that much to stop criminals from getting guns from the Black Market. You are also assuming everyone will turn in their guns, which many won't.

>*they are smuggled from across the border.*

Which border? Canada I guess? You don't think guns will cost much more if you have to get a gun all the way in Canada to get one?

>*Banning guns won’t do that much to stop criminals from getting guns from the Black Market.*
Yea, when guns go way up in price, it will stop many people from purchasing them.

When has a desirable thing ever stopped being produced, and it not shot way up in price?

@Strange Festive Snickerway

"IMO, a better solution to shootings and extremism would be better mental health. If we can better understand and treat potential shooters or extremists, we won’t have to worry about guns in the first place."

I have to agree with you on that, reducing the root causes of crimes (mental health among them) should be the primary concern, I just figured that I would go ahead and confront the elephant in the room anyways.

Mexico actually, and if guns are banned, it will guarantee an increase in the amount of smugglers and the amount of guns smuggled in, most likely enough to offset most of the price. Remember prohibition? Remember how much of a failure that was? If someone is set on committing mass murder anyway, they will pay any price to get their weapons, so it's not like it matters

I'll just throw in my two cents, because I view this issue in an entirely different way.

Everyone else seems to be framing this in a legal framework, or a framework of "what will stop crime most efficiently?" I see this in a moral framework though.

The basis for most libertarian principles is the nonaggression principle. Basically, it says if I can't do it to the government shouldn't be allowed to. A quick example is if I had an awesome charity that nearly everyone agreed was worthwhile, would it be moral for me to demand someone to give me money by threatening them with a gun or being locked in a cell? No, I would quickly go to jail for that. The logic extends (in the short version anyways) that the government shouldn't be allowed to do the exact same thing themselves.

From this, I see that gun control is immoral. I am not allowed to demand people only use certain guns by threatening them with… well, guns. Or any other weapon for that matter. In my view, it's just not moral.

Well, might as well throw in some concerns about the theoretical effects of gun control, or a lack thereof.

Poochyena points out, rightly so, that the price of illegal guns would likely skyrocket if gun control was tightened. However, this alone isn't enough to justify it. We'd need to show that the raised price of illegal guns would offset the increased danger caused by less people having guns. Note that a lot of gun violence occurs in areas with tight gun control, and gun-free zones such as schools and movie theaters.

The shooter would be the person with his gun pointed at innocent people. More guns can solve the problem. When Charles Whitman went on his sniper rampage in 1966 civilians went home and got their rifles to fire back at him, reducing casualities and letting people help the wounded. And when Kimveer Gill attacked Dawson college in 2006 the police shot him after following him inside, reducing the causalities to one(plus Gill who killed himself). So there are situations where more guns can solve the problem.

^this

Especially when you consider that the Mexican-American border is basically non-existent at this point.

For handguns and concealed carry licenses you do in fact need a license in most states. Hunting Rifles and Shotguns tend to not require a license to own. Semi-automatic rifles and fully automatic rifles tend to be banned in most states or highly restricted to own, if not illegal in the case of full-auto weapons. So laws exist in place for said guns, especially the ones used during the shooting, but it varies state to state and sometimes even county to county.

As someone pointed out earlier, the rifles used during the shooting were illegal to purchase under California state law, and if you owned one then you had to submit records showing that you did, meaning they were acquired illegally. I highly doubt additional licenses would prevent events like domestic terrorism or even mass shootings from occurring when the perps either have no record or got their weapons through illegal means.

@Wiseowl

If this is the case (I admittedly don't know too much about gun laws), than I have to agree that stricter gun control wouldn't really work, considering at that point, the US would have some stricter laws than other countries (for rifles at least). Ultimately, the main focus should be on reducing the motives for these crimes.

The main problem I see with the whole "ban all guns" arguement is that people think that it will stop attacks on this scale from happening again, but I can tell you as a Brit, when we brought in strict gun control after Dunblane (for the sake of US users, think of it as Britains equivilent of Colombine), Gangs just started using knives instead and we end up having the same debate over something different.

Banning guns is not fixing the problem, it's just sweeping it under the rug

EDIT: looking at the list of the dead, it could also be seen as Columbine meets Sandy Hook

Anyone else find it infuriating when people talk about Gun deaths as if they were the only form of murder that matters? That the fact that we are the 121st country in terms of homicide doesn't mean we are safe because guns? That if we take guns out of a murderers hands, we won't simply reach for a knife or spend five minutes on Google for a bomb recipe I can probably make with the stuff I got laying around?

Personally I feel that gun control is such a complex subject dealing with so many variables that I leave the arguing up to more knowledgeable people and stick to topics I am myself knowledgable instead.
I don't think I'd ever own a gun except under extreme circumstances and I probably won't ever go to a firing range, but that doesn't mesn I don't think guns aren't neat (as long as they aren't being used to cause undue suffering, which I don't think they are the majority of the time.)
I don't think I'd a total ban on guns, because that sounds like it wouldn't work. That said, I am for at least some moderate level of control, like a waiting period for purchasing a gun, perhaps a background check or something, and very strict limits on the really dangerous battlefield type guns.
I will say, though, that it's a lot easier to accidentally kill someone with a gun then, say, a knife, or poison, or strangulation.
In the end though, I feel like there really isn't a "best" solution yet and that we need to keep digging for better ones. Perhaps someone will one day invent a tesla-coil like gun that would knock people out without killing them, and we could popularize that instead (except on gun ranges and the battlefield and maybe the police). If it could be designed to be at leadt effective at incapacitating a target as a gun when used in a gun fight, then I don't see why we shouldn't use those instead. Of course, such a device may be impossible, but that's just one possibility-- hopefully there are enough that we can eventually find a better solution to this problem, rather than choosing between two mediocre ones.

Guns, gun crime, shootings and school shootings are just something American's have to deal with.

Anyone want to address how most gun crime is committed by gangs, semi-societal and cultural constructs which create their own partially contained societies and commit the highest amount of murder in this country? That these same criminal and underground elements routinely spend thousands of dollars on superficial status symbols such as fashion, vehicles, customized jewelry, or tattoos because such things denote a form of status symbol amongst their groups.

And that by making guns illegal, you are turning them into a status symbol to be possessed and coveted, thus giving incentive to criminals to buy them even at high prices in an arms race and peer pressure way. Basically, banning guns will not alter the number of people buying guns, merely chsnge their motivation for doing so.

Additionally, it's not as hard as people think to make guns. Nor would it be out of the question for people to use reloading machines to create their own ammunition for said firearms. The machinery and molds to make the guns could be obtained from the various states whose former manufacturing sectors for firearms would collapse with the ban. Similar to the situation in pakistan or the Philippines, people will find the meand to make replicas of firearms.

And they'll make a killing fueling the new illegal arms trade. Because there's nothing to incentivies the drug dealing, prostitute running, human trafficking, store robbing, or people killing, individuals from still breaking the law to get their hands on this stuff. And use the same ways used to smuggle in drugs to smuggle shells, bullets, and powder.

I got time to make a few more replies
@Ryumaru Borike
>*Mexico actually*

So we are going to get guns from Mexico, who gets guns from us.
Yea, that makes sense.
Most guns in mexico are from the US, so if we stopped producing guns, where would mexico be getting the guns that they will be giving us?

>*if guns are banned, it will guarantee an increase in the amount of smugglers and the amount of guns smuggled in, most likely enough to offset most of the price.*

So how do you explain guns in Mexico costing significantly more? http://www.havocscope.com/black-market-prices/ak-47/

>*If someone is set on committing mass murder anyway, they will pay any price to get their weapons, so it’s not like it matters*

No, they don't. Unless they are a highly organized crime circuit, they don't.
People rob stores with knifes, people go on mass shootings with pistols. If criminals wanted to rob or kill someone, why do they go for the low grade weapons and not go for high profile weapons like automatic weapons?

They come through the Mexican border, the actual source of the operation is probably lower down.

Most guns like that are headed to the US, meaning more of them in or near the US, meaning cheaper where there is more.

These people who are so indulged in their ideology, who plan this shit months ahead of time, are gonna pay whatever it takes. I'm not talking about store robberies, I'm talking about mass shootings, committed almost unanimously by people with a radical ideal, who are not expecting to survive or stay free afterwards (since most of them kill themselves after the shooting) Those people will pay what it takes to get guns.

I don't know why you are even talking about a "Guns get banned" scenario, since that would never happen, and if by some miracle it did, would get revoked once that shit goes the way of Prohibition.

I'd like to take this time to remind everyone that this is a thing, it will continue to be a thing after guns are banned from the US, that this operates in Europe, South America, The Middle East, and Asia, as well as North America, and that there is very little that could be done to stop this already illegal trade, that hasn't already been enacted.

@Poochyena

"So we are going to get guns from Mexico, who gets guns from us.
Yea, that makes sense.
Most guns in mexico are from the US, so if we stopped producing guns, where would mexico be getting the guns that they will be giving us?"

I'm just going to point out that last year, a US Senator (A staunch gun control advocate from California no less, go figure) was busted by the FBI for illegal trafficking of weapons (among other charges), so I'd consider it certainly possible that public officials of other countries might do the same thing as well. They could certainly sell military grade weapons to cartels, who could then smuggle and sell them in the US.

Admittedly, I don't know the likelihood of that chain of events, I'm just saying it's within the realm of possibility.

Article on the senator and events in question

"Investigators said Yee discussed helping the agent get weapons worth $500,000 to $2.5 million, including shoulder-fired missiles, and explained the entire process of acquiring them from a Muslim separatist group in the Philippines to bringing them to the U.S., according to an affidavit by FBI agent Emmanuel V. Pascua."

Well it would make it a lot harder for shootings to happen when guns are less available
I mean, America is one of the few countries that has mass shootings
I mean, look at Japan… They have guns banned entirely and they feel safe enough about it to make cartoons in which a high school gets shot up by Air Rifles
Their ease to obtain almost makes it easy for terrorists to attack you from within, see the San Bernardino incident for proof of that

Did you even read the above posts? No amount of Gun Control is gonna stop the Black Market trades.

America is not "one of the few" with mass shootings


Plenty of other European countries have mass shootings as well, they just don't get blown up on an international scale like the ones in America do.
Of the top 16 worst shootings in terms of death count, 12 happened outside the US

In regards to the San Bernardono incident, the guns he obtained were illegal to own anyway, not to mention the fact he had BOMBS Gun Control would have done nothing, zero, zip, nadda, absolutely NOTHING to stop that incident.

WTF happened in Norway?

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/norway-nightmare-92-dead-in-terror-attacks/
Funny how that major event faded into obscurity. Granted, Norway's small population plus this massive attack skews the data a bit though, notice how Norway is lower on the frequency chart

I should point out that those charts collected data from 2009 to 2015, previous shootings not taken into account

I think before we propose anything else, we need better data collection. That's why we need to lift the ban on the CDC collecting data on the subject, and possibly considering lifting the gag order on doctors asking about firearm ownership. Firearm deaths from accidents and suicides are a public health issue, if you ask me.

We also need to find a way to discourage the media from making a whole goddamn documentary about people after they've committed a shooting rampage. Although gun deaths overall have been declining along with violent crime in general over the past several years, mass public shootings have been on the rise, and it's because of the infamy the killer gets afterwards.

Public shooting rampages are contagious, not just because of the easy availability of firearms, but also because disturbed, angry individuals see it as a way of making a personal or political statement to an audience of millions. If I remember correctly, that guy who stabbed 20 kids in China said he did it because he learned from the news that he would be famous if he killed children.

I was actually referring to school shootings, you could tell by the fact I then brought up and anime involving fire arms within a school environments
Besides, those listings you provided seem to look "few" to me
Getting guns illegally happens everywhere, but at least with them you know what sort of people are going to be using them
With legal fire arms, its all too easy for them to get in the hands of children
The black market will always do what it does, but at least the police can do more about it
And while yes, some of the worst shootings have happened outside of America, a lot more happen in there
Also, and you'll have to excuse my blatant bias/racism here, but its also the matter that its Americans that are getting the guns. Personally I wouldn't trust the average American with anything sharper than a spoon, but what will I know, being an Englishman
Also, in regards to terrorism, guns are way scarier than bombs. In fact, its the fact that they are now preferring guns over bombs that is making ISIS much more dangerous than previous terrorist groups. Guns are mobile, easier to conceal, easier to obtain and much more effective at killing people.
With how efficient guns are for killing people, you would think that was what they were made for or something. And what would a sane person need with such an implement? It would be as if they planned to be a murderer. And who would want people to think them a murderer?

Another friendly reminder that 70% of the weapons smuggling trade comes from the United States. But, that of this smuggling, nearly all of it constitutes as an illegal transaction, and is already being pursued by law enforcement to stop them.

Additionally, this does not account for the other 30% of gun trade from central america, asia, and the pacific. A number that would likely grow as they become the main source of firearms for mexico. :P

If anyone thinks just getting rid of american guns will solve anything except cause a massive decades long spike in violent crime, followed by a maybe-could-maybe-couldn't dip, they're fooling themselves. That dip has happened in every country, and every state in the US, where gun laws were enacted. It always causes a spike that lasts at least 5 to 8 years in length.

Nice to know you are making this statement though a thick "Americans are bad" bias filter. I think that statement alone makes me not want to continue this discussion

The reason you can get a gun in highly restrictive states is because the states nearby don't have gun laws.

Gun restrictions NEED to be a Country wide thing, standard in all states.

California can have the tightest gun laws, but people can just drive over to Arizona and buy a M4 and come back and start shooting people.

If every state but Texas banned guns or put heavy restrictions on them, then Texas because the center of a black market, people go and buy guns legally take them to illegal states and sell them.

You do realize that in order to buy a gun in a state you are not a residence in, you need to fill out a form and have the gun transferred to an FFL in your state for pick up after 10 days and an instate background check. It is illegal for a Gun store to sell a gun to an out of stater without this set up, meaning they either have to have an instater buy the gun and sell it to you, which is a Black Market sell, also illegal.

Specific states yes, and how often do you get checked driving between two states?

I only got checked when I went on a trip to Cali from New Mexico because the road we were on got really close to the boarder and they were checking for illegals.

Driving between Arizona? Nothing, Driving to Texas? nothing.

I could buy a gun at a gun show and be back in the morning with no checks if I took the right route in.

Point is Gun laws cannot be state by state. They need to be nationwide and standardized for the most part.

States could still decide open/conceal carry stuff themselves, but we cannot have states that require no license to buy mingling around with states that require a federally approved test before you can own a gun.,

Did… did… did you even read what I posted? I just said no Gun shop is gonna sell to you if you are an out of stater without first going through the paperwork and having the gun transferred. You'd have to illegally purchase it from either a guy you know or from someone illegally selling firearms, aka The Black Market
This is already federal law http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

Wow. This is some grade A political blindness going on.

"In order to sell a gun to someone outside a state, you need to set up a location in state to pick up the gun and undergo a screening process"

I can confirm as someone whose bought a gun out of state thst this is what you need to do. And the paperwork you sign includes dirvers liscences and social security card. At least for washington.

But to actually see someone completely ignore that to talk about car stops like this is the 1950's. XD I suppose we better start hunting down them spekises as well. Wouldn't want them bootleggers runnin around with their moknshining tommy gunsm