[General Battuta]

To be honest, gun ownership in America is probably a good thing. The biggest issue we have is that our government isn't adequately afraid of the people. We should probably have guillotines set up in state capitals too (the federal government should have a thermonuclear weapon buried under Washington, under the control of the people of course)

[StarSlayer]

To be honest, gun ownership in America is probably a good thing. The biggest issue we have is that our government isn't adequately afraid of the people. We should probably have guillotines set up in state capitals too (the federal government should have a thermonuclear weapon buried under Washington, under the control of the people of course)

There are some pretty cool museums, archives and monuments in DC, it would be a shame to nuke the whole thing.  I think a more precise controlled set up explosives would be better, like surgically implanted in politicians heads.

[General Battuta]

That's a pretty good idea, the detonation control could be a Facebook page with a poll.

[SpardaSon21]

We just need to bring back the old Athenian ostrakon.  For those who don't know what that was, it was a plebiscite about the most powerful politicians, and whoever got the most votes was exiled for a year.

[Topgun]

That's a pretty good idea, the detonation control could be a Facebook page with a poll.

genius.

[Nuclear1]

Nuclear, I already knew you hated freedom but you have to look at countries like Libya where people owned guns and they easily kicked Gadaffi and his third world military's ass, even if they had to steal most of their weapons, NATO helped out a little bit, and they haven't quite kicked his ass yet.


The previous statements were partially sarcastic.

My point has been made.

And yes, sarcasm detected.  Liberal override engaged.

Preemptive o hai fbi inserted.

No wonder we all just circle jerk all day.

Eh, if you wanna talk circle jerk...

Sure, a lot of HLPers are liberal, but for the most part we're pretty tolerant of conservative views as long as the people presenting them are polite.  I know I've had a habit of being a dick when it comes to politics, both when I was a conservative and now as a liberal, but I'm trying to be better about it.

[Nuke]

That's a pretty good idea, the detonation control could be a Facebook page with a poll.

i would be so exploiting that thing

personally i dont think there is enough violence in the world. we need rate of deaths == rate of population growth. so moar gun violence and moar war please.

[Kopachris]

I reiterate:

Evidence on Gun Bans and Murder Rates: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4vruXcVfjv-NGE5ZTkxMjQtOGQwZS00YmZiLTgzYjQtOGMwOWQ5ZjVmZmVj&hl=en
Fatal Car Accident Statistics: http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/fatal-accident-statistics.html
Homicide statistics by state: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AovruXcVfjv-dE1pVkIxUWtiRXZoSzZHSDBUYTFZa1E&hl=en
(spreadsheet by me based on data from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Homicide/State/RunHomOneYearofData.cfm)

Car Accident Fatalities in 2005 (USA): 43,443
Gun Homicides in 2005 (USA): 10,624

Countries which ban guns (specifically handguns) typically have a higher murder rate using them.

Lessons learned?  Guns don't kill people, people kill people; if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

I personally believe (if you haven't already gathered this) that because of human nature, banning guns is largely ineffective.  Conversely, not banning guns is also largely ineffective.  The best use for civilian gun ownership is sport shooting.

Two more things:

First, that the people who commit murders with guns are a minority of the gun-owning population of any nation that allows civilian gun ownership.  Like anything else, it's a few whackos giving the rest a bad name.

Second, that no one today really knows how to set up a "well-regulated" militia for the purpose of overthrowing an oppressive government in today's age of modern warfare.  Here's how I think it might work:

1. [Prerequisite] Own a large corporation with the power (money) to build/buy aircraft, heavy weaponry, private fortresses/airstrips, and all the other trappings of modern warfare.
2. Start building/buying all that stuff.
3a. Require compulsory "security training" for all able employees, but offer incentives such as free housing or tax-free income (we're overthrowing the government, so there's no need to pay taxes).
3b. Use propaganda to brainwash all employees and their families.
4. If government tries to stop you, fight back (i.e. let them strike first).
5. Surprise attack Washington, bombing capitol building, White House (or wherever the Prez is), and Pentagon (taking out NORAD (if possible) might also be a good idea)
6. Now that the federal government has been attacked from within the nation, chaos will ensue and the states will eventually try to form their own governments to deal with the chaos of revolution.  Therefore...
7. [Optional] Unify the states under a new government.

A few anti-government zealots aren't going to overthrow any [first-world government].  In order to overthrow an oppressive government [alone], a group must (temporarily) have near total control over a lot of money and a lot of people, but must then be willing to give up that control once the oppressive government is overthrown in order to prevent becoming just another oppressive government.  Unfortunately, human nature doesn't work that way; people in power will always try to stay in power.  No corporation is ever going to gain control over a lot of people, overthrow one government, set up a new government, and then just release control over those people.

(emphasis added)

All this talk about overthrowing oppressive governments and self-defense is utter nonsense.  For revolution, rifles, shotguns, and handguns aren't going to beat any first-world military.  For self-defense, we'll never have any concrete answers.  I've seen statistics saying that most criminals were deterred by the fact that the intended victim had a gun, and I've seen statistics saying that most people who own a handgun for self-defense don't know how to use one.  I've seen statistics that banning guns leads to increased violence, and I've seen statistics saying that banning guns decreases (specifically gun) violence.

The best idea is probably not to ban guns or make them harder to get, but to increase safety and awareness through mandatory classes, like with driving.

[Nemesis6]

if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Sarcasm mode on: "If more people had guns, we'd have less shootings in this country."

The more guns, the worse off everyone is. If normal people carry around weapons, that's bad. Think for a second - Someone who gets a weapon to defend themselves, those kinds of people are likely to be the type of person who, if in possession of a firearm, could mess things up even more. Robbery for example - Instead of just taking your money, you'll get shot because the weapon is spotted; hence easier just to shoot you and rob the body. Or how about this: You're robbed, and in panic you go for your gun. Stab, you're dead, or the criminal will grab your gun and if he has to wrestle you for it, you know what's gonna happen if he gains control of it.

Nutshelled: Criminals are better at this stuff than normal people. If you go against them, odds are stacked in their favor and you can end up dead.

Now, putting that aside: I do support things like maze and pepper-spray, because they're not lethal.

[Mustang19]

I rather like Dominican Republic's take on assault rifles. You can own them with a special license thats very hard to get but they are illegal to take off private property and the police reserve the right to confiscate them at anytime. It limits their use to security and collecting. It can still be exploited but its better than making them illegal outright or letting anyone walk around with one.

Yeah, no it's not.

As far as I'm concerned, gun ownership (and the attitudes related to it) in the US is (are) balls-to-the-wall, **** smearing crazy. I've heard all the arguments and none of them hold water for me. Honestly, it's treated like a slightly tragic joke over here.

Hey, if you've heard all the arguments critique the paper I posted and it's conclusions.

hai gaiz i know this thread is really derailed but i'd thought i'd drop this harvard study here too

Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it does matter is that more guns equal less violent crime.

if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Sarcasm mode on: "If more people had guns, we'd have less shootings in this country."

The more guns, the worse off everyone is. If normal people carry around weapons, that's bad. Think for a second - Someone who gets a weapon to defend themselves, those kinds of people are likely to be the type of person who, if in possession of a firearm, could mess things up even more. Robbery for example - Instead of just taking your money, you'll get shot because the weapon is spotted; hence easier just to shoot you and rob the body. Or how about this: You're robbed, and in panic you go for your gun. Stab, you're dead, or the criminal will grab your gun and if he has to wrestle you for it, you know what's gonna happen if he gains control of it.

Nutshelled: Criminals are better at this stuff than normal people. If you go against them, odds are stacked in their favor and you can end up dead.

Now, putting that aside: I do support things like maze and pepper-spray, because they're not lethal.

Cite a source proving that guns are ineffective for self-defense. The evidence does not show that gun control reduces the homicide rate.

[Nuke]

im all for gun training, i dont see no point in owning a gun if you dont know how to use one. my brother said his concealed weapon class was well worth taking. it also makes the gun much more effective in a situation where you need it. they also cover a lot of things you dont normally think of, like storage, effective holstering, threat recognition and tactics.

some safety training also would be a good idea for all members of the immediate family, especially children. the typical urbanite keeps their guns locked up or hidden in order to keep their kids from getting into it, and both present problems. hiding the gun doesn't guarantee your kids wont find it, but locking it up doesn't always give you enough time to get it out of the safe when you need it. i know my brother drilled at his safe until he could open it in less than 10 seconds. however i know people who keep their gun rack in there living room with no locks at all, and with ammunition spread about. of course with kids raised on the gun owning lifestyle, often with guns of their own, they have a healthy respect for guns you just dont see in urban kids. id even go as far as school field trips to the shooting range. every one of them should get a lecture on gun safety and a chance to pop off a couple rounds.

im all for training, but im not sure it should be mandatory. gun ownership is so engrained into the american psyche that i dont think it would be remotely possible to ever change the second amendment. and gun safety laws would no doubt depend on the state. gun laws in states like texas, alaska and aizona would probibly be far less restrictive than states like new york or california. given the difference in attitude towards firearms in various states. federal law should mostly just cover registration and the like.

[achtung]

I've always found issues with people saying the attackers who act willing to use deadly force are not supposed to be subject to a chance of being killed. Maybe it's faulty logic, and it ignores who is at "fault" for the attacker's situation, but I'm not sure I would feel much sorrow for popping a mugger in the stomach with a .45 if he was threatening my life for 20 bucks. You say it's not worth chancing his life? It's not worth chancing mine either.

I own several guns, and I've never came close to having an incident with them. I was raised to treat the weapons with respect, and after putting, quite literally, tens of thousands of rounds through various firearms I have not had a single incident. Well wait, I take that back, I did pop my cousin in the boot with a Red Rider BB-Gun when I was 10.

Educate people, make sure nobody can buy a "Saturday Night Special" (waiting a few days shouldn't hurt anyone), and better regulate pawn shops.

There's a semi-informed opinion with no citation.

[Kopachris]

if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Sarcasm mode on: "If more people had guns, we'd have less shootings in this country."

The more guns, the worse off everyone is. If normal people carry around weapons, that's bad. Think for a second - Someone who gets a weapon to defend themselves, those kinds of people are likely to be the type of person who, if in possession of a firearm, could mess things up even more. Robbery for example - Instead of just taking your money, you'll get shot because the weapon is spotted; hence easier just to shoot you and rob the body. Or how about this: You're robbed, and in panic you go for your gun. Stab, you're dead, or the criminal will grab your gun and if he has to wrestle you for it, you know what's gonna happen if he gains control of it.

Nutshelled: Criminals are better at this stuff than normal people. If you go against them, odds are stacked in their favor and you can end up dead.

Now, putting that aside: I do support things like maze and pepper-spray, because they're not lethal.

I don't disagree, but I don't think that trying to get rid of guns will help anything.  Mandatory education is a much better alternative--teach people how and when (and when not) to use a gun properly instead of simply saying "you can't have that, it's dangerous!"

[Nuke]

I've always found issues with people saying the attackers who act willing to use deadly force are not supposed to be subject to a chance of being killed. Maybe it's faulty logic, and it ignores who is at "fault" for the attacker's situation, but I'm not sure I would feel much sorrow for popping a mugger in the stomach with a .45 if he was threatening my life for 20 bucks. You say it's not worth chancing his life? It's not worth chancing mine either.

I own several guns, and I've never came close to having an incident with them. I was raised to treat the weapons with respect, and after putting, quite literally, tens of thousands of rounds through various firearms I have not had a single incident. Well wait, I take that back, I did pop my cousin in the boot with a Red Rider BB-Gun when I was 10.

Educate people, make sure nobody can buy a "Saturday Night Special" (waiting a few days shouldn't hurt anyone), and better regulate pawn shops.

There's a semi-informed opinion with no citation.

having actually worked in a pawn shop in the state of arizona, we had to go through the same federal process as your typical gun shop. the only difference was we delt in used guns (though i think we did sell new ones as well). this process includes a phone call to the fbi. you fill out the forms and you just give them the contents of certain blanks, and they give you a go, hold or no. go means we could sell it right away, hold means this person was flagged and some investigation is needed to approve the sale (this usually only takes a couple days, and in essence would work kinda like layaway), or no, in which it would be illegal to sell the gun to this person. the rules are more strict with regards to handguns, you can buy a rifle or a shotgun without a thorough check, unless you were explicitly denied to. most of the time it was a go, and i can only remember ever having a single hold, i almost never got a no. there are shady pawn shops which break these rules (we were fairly shady ourselves), but we never did.

of course that was years ago and i smoked a lot of weed back then.

[Nuclear1]

Car Accident Fatalities in 2005 (USA): 43,443
Gun Homicides in 2005 (USA): 10,624

Oy vey.

Guns have one and only purpose:  to injure or kill whatever they're aimed at.  If used correctly, they'll do just that.
Cars have several purposes:  to move people from Point A to Point B, to move cargo from Point A to Point B, et al.  If used correctly, they'll do just that.

Cars used incorrectly or for purposes other than what they were designed will cause injuries or fatalities.  It's why auto companies spend millions developing better safety equipment, better frames, and new technologies to improve driver and pedestrian safety.  It's also why there are laws to ensure people operate their cars properly, so they don't injure themselves or others.  There are penalties specifically for crimes committed with cars:  vehicular homicide, driving under the influence, and countless traffic laws.

There have to be laws governing the use of guns just as there are laws governing the use of automobiles.   You're restricted from driving over certain speeds on public roads because it poses a hazard to other drivers.  You're restricted from raising vehicles over a certain height because it poses a risk to you.  On the same hand, you should be restricted from owning certain weapons and carrying them in certain places.  You can go to the gun range just like you can go to the race track.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people; if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Guns don't kill people, but they sure make it a hell of a lot easier.  The whole point of making certain guns illegal is to make sure ordinary people can't get their hands on overly-powerful weapons that make killing others easier.

The best idea is probably not to ban guns or make them harder to get, but to increase safety and awareness through mandatory classes, like with driving.

That's a temporary measure.  The best way to end gun violence is to eliminate the root causes of crime in general:  poverty, unemployment, poor healthcare, and urban decay. 

Unfortunately, the same rabid Second Amendment activists tend to be in the same crowd that view those measures as "socialist" or bad for America.  They've become their own self-fulfilling prophecy by ensuring a constant need for guns to protect against the crime they have no interest in ending in any meaningful way.

[Dark Hunter]

There have to be laws governing the use of guns just as there are laws governing the use of automobiles.   You're restricted from driving over certain speeds on public roads because it poses a hazard to other drivers.  You're restricted from raising vehicles over a certain height because it poses a risk to you.  On the same hand, you should be restricted from owning certain weapons and carrying them in certain places.  You can go to the gun range just like you can go to the race track.

You're acting like there aren't any restrictions in America, as if anyone can go and purchase any weapon and just walk around with it.

Absolutely. Wrong.

The exact laws vary from state to state, but in general, the more powerful guns are heavily restricted. About the only guns you ever see out in public are handguns, and even that's rare (excepting policemen, of course). I live in one of the more gun-happy parts of America, and I can count the number of privately owned firearms I've seen in public on one hand. There are concealed carry laws, true, but you have to get a special license for that, which means (guess what?) government-controlled and regulated. I've only ever known one person with that license, and he took his weapon extremely seriously. Really big on gun safety. The vast majority of people who own guns own them exclusively for home defense, or for shooting at firing ranges.

The right to bear arms does not mean unrestricted access to weaponry, and it does not mean that all Americans run around with loaded weapons on their belts.

EDIT:@post beneath this one: I see your point. I apologize for my presumption.

[Nuclear1]

Totally missing the point and the context.

I wasn't saying the laws don't exist, I was saying that they exist for a reason.  The 'only the outlaws will have guns' and the NRA crowd tend to rally around the idea that the fewer gun laws there are, the better. I was saying that a lot of those laws exist for the same reason we have restrictions on automobiles:  because if there weren't laws regarding public safety, a lot more people would be in danger.  And a lot of the pro-Second Amendment folks out there want to see more of those laws repealed so they can fulfill their revolution fantasies and pretend that they're going to be the next Minutemen.

It was all just a response to the "cars kill more people than guns, so car should be banned" statement.

[Nuke]

what they should do is legalize murder, then i could use my gun on people instead of bucks

[Mustang19]

Sure, a lot of HLPers are liberal, but for the most part we're pretty tolerant of conservative views as long as the people presenting them are polite.  I know I've had a habit of being a dick when it comes to politics, both when I was a conservative and now as a liberal, but I'm trying to be better about it.

It doesn't bother me that most HLPers are liberal. What bothers me is that virtually all of the ones that are able to construct a coherent argument are liberal. And I don't care about whether conservative views are tolerated here as long as factual evidence is presented against them and these debates don't result in instaban/threadlock whenever they come up. Really, polite debates and euphemisms can get stale.

I don't see safety issues a reason to ban guns, not that anyone was suggesting that. The firearm fatality rate is 9.94 per 100k in the US, but 39% of those deaths are homicides, 57% are suicides and only 2% are accidental deaths. Of course 26% of injuries are accidental but I don't think 5.7 accidents per 100,000 people shows guns are an unreasonable risk if they help defend people.

Now it might be a good idea to make firearm safety training mandatory but I'm not aware of this really entering into the debate. Are there any countries or states that actually do this? Because it seems like the firearms "debate" in the US more of a symbolic thing than anything else and people are more concerned about trying to stop people from getting guns than with making sure people use guns safely.

In Virginia anyone with a clean enough record over 18 can just walk into Wal Mart and buy a shotgun; other guns require a permit though. Gun shows especially make it easy to get a weapon in the US- no ID check necessary, walk up to a seller and pay in cash. I like it and it's convenient for me at least. What the heck do you have to do to get a gun in the rest of the world?

[The E]

In Germany, you need to be at least 18 years old, you need to have a clean police record, you have to pass a background check, and, crucially, you need to have a demonstrated need. The latter is assumed to be the case if you have a hunters' license, but can also be demonstrated through membership in a  shooting sports club. Note that to get a carry permit for a handgun is basically impossible unless you have a very clear need of doing so (i.e. being a licensed hunter, police officer, security guard in a high-risk posting [bodyguard duty]).

And of course, all of the licenses associated with this have to be renewed regularly.