[Nuke]

i think the problem with america's gun violence is not so much readily available access to guns, but the fact that we go out of our way to glorify violence and criminal activity. our movies our music and our tv is loaded with it. gun control also does not eliminate guns. guns can still be bought and sold on the black market (criminals just dont buy guns from your corner gun shop). we manufacture guns so we dont need to import anything, criminals just need to hijack a few shipments to provide guns for criminal enterprise.

what gun control might do is curb accidental gun deaths and reduce the number of crimes of passion. but it wont stop gangsters, armed robbers, drug dealers and hitmen.

The US needs to realize that implementing safety controls on firearms ownership and use [NATIONALLY] is not an attempt to disarm its populace and negate the 2nd Amendment, which seems to be the hang-up.  There is nothing wrong with licensing for firearms owners (a particularly successful initiative under our own Firearms Act).  Similarly, there is nothing wrong with making mandatory safety training a part of obtaining that license (as we do), nor making education about proper storage and implementing laws to that effect (which we also do) a priority too.  Right there you can significantly reduce the risks of accidental deaths (which account for a large number of firearms-related deaths in the US).  It doesn't deal with the criminal element who will obtain a gun no matter what you try, but it prevents your five-year old from killing his brother because he played with daddy's gun because daddy couldn't take the 30 seconds to unload it and store it safely.

THAT'S what infuriates me about the US gun culture - the crazy refusal to see how a few minor restrictions can save the lives of your loved ones.

i should also point out that various gun control laws are not at the federal but at the state and local levels. here in alaska (at least some parts of it) guns are essential. if you live anywhere north of anchorage you need guns just to avoid getting eaten by a large bear. we also have a lot of people who hunt. so our gun regulations are more lax than say new york or california. i would push for more safety oriented gun control, like mandatory trigger locks or safes, laws on obtaining ammunition, and mandatory safety training. but banning guns is something im strongly against.

i also lived in arizona which is another gun happy state. having worked in a pawn shop where half the people who worked there either wore a gun or had one in near reach during the work day. did get to see the federal gun control in action, where make, model, serial number, store information and the personal information of the applicant are all needed, as well as a phone call to the fbi who ultimately have the last word on whether or not a sale can be made. assuming things havent changed much since then that is all the control there is at the federal level.

[Grizzly]

Another name for 'gun control' is 'victim disarmament'. It only works to disarm the public, and make them unable to defend themselves, thus having to ask their government for assistance. The government always loves to come riding in as the savior during a crisis when it does them most credit or favor.

It's not like criminals will go turn in their guns, they'll probably cheer gun control and start looting.

Has not happened here so far...

[karajorma]

Nor in the UK.

[MP-Ryan]

I could make the same argument for explosives having legitimate civilian uses but I doubt you want anyone to be able to wonder into a shop and buy a stick of dynamite.

But I haven't been arguing for uncontrolled access.  The explosives analogy is a good one; much like firearms, there are legitimate occupational, technical, and recreational [yes, fireworks are explosives] uses for explosives.  Not just anyone can buy them - but a total ban on their purchase and use is not in effect, and those who can demonstrate a use for them can still legitimately obtain them.

The argument for banning handguns but not long arms is a weak one; although less-easily concealed, a sawn-off shotgun is considerably easier to obtain and much more deadly than your average handgun.  Illegal too, but it takes nothing more than a hacksaw and a common shotgun to make one.

Like I said, perhaps a policy may work in one jurisdiction but not another.  That's fine.  The argument that firearms themselves (or even just handguns) have no legitimate use other than against people and cannot be controlled in their use is just an exceedingly weak one.  I say this as someone who has gone through to process to obtain a license for possession/acquisition of both non-restricted (long guns) and restricted (some long guns, all handguns) firearms, but who does not actively own any of either type because I do not have a need to.

[Polpolion]

Who is more cynical, the people that want guns because they're afraid they'll be attacked or the people that think the general populace is too stupid to learn to properly handle guns? I can't tell.

[Turambar]

civilization is here so that I don't need to be trained and equipped for murder. 

[Polpolion]

civilization is here so that I don't need to be trained and equipped for murder.

You mean murderers in civilized areas don't need to be trained or equipped for murder? Or did that statement just apply to literally YOU? Or are there by definition no murders (and hence no murderers) in civilized areas?

[StarSlayer]

civilization is here so that I don't need to be trained and equipped for murder.

You mean murderers in civilized areas don't need to be trained or equipped for murder? Or did that statement just apply to literally YOU? Or are there by definition no murders (and hence no murderers) in civilized areas?

Forgive me if my sarcasm generator didn't properly register on your response but I assume he meant civilization should prevent murder from being visited on his person.  While a noble goal isn't a realistically attainable one, least with out some rewiring of the brain. 

[Turambar]

It's done a good job protecting me from murder so far

[StarSlayer]

It's done a good job protecting me from murder so far

You personally maybe, but even optimally I doubt civilization could completely prevent killing from occurring without changing some fundamental parts of human nature.

[Polpolion]

I figured he could've meant that, but responded what he said.

If you assume he meant what he said, he implies that having guns and knowing how to use them is training and equipment for murder. The latter is potentially true, but is also potentially true of an absurd amount of things that aren't firearms. All of which have potential uses outside of murder. The former is simply untrue. On no occasion does training on the safe use of guns train you to murder people, and anyone with any experience with firearms knows that.

If you assume "civilization is here so that I don't need to be trained and equipped for murder" means "people shouldn't fear being murdered in civilized places", mind you two statements that mean entirely different things, both normal enough to be read literally, then he has a point. But, as you pointed out, StarSlayer, a weak one.

And if Turambar was talking about himself alone, there's really no reasonable point anywhere.

[NGTM-1R]

Nor in the UK.

Your initial flagwaving over the enlightened nature of UK gun policy could be considered the ultimate success story for someone following JCDN's theory. You are convinced that the government has, in fact, protected you.

I think he sells it too high, but there's truth in his assessment. Given that in living memory the ability of the police to successfully regulate crime for certain communities has lapsed or simply collapsed, a personal defense argument is difficult to oppose. Not that you'll ever hear the NRA phrase it that way or mean it in the way I do, i.e. Compton in the '90s.

[karajorma]

Your initial flagwaving over the enlightened nature of UK gun policy could be considered the ultimate success story for someone following JCDN's theory. You are convinced that the government has, in fact, protected you.

You've completely failed to prove it hasn't.

[NGTM-1R]

You've completely failed to prove it hasn't.

You've completely failed to prove it hasn't either! How shocking.

[karajorma]

Onus is on you, since you're claiming the majority of the general British population hold the wrong opinion as well as hinting that there is a government conspiracy behind it all.

[QuantumDelta]

Quite, I completely agree with karajorma, and I'm pretty ****ing anti-establishment.

[MP-Ryan]

Apples to mushrooms, fellas, apples to mushrooms... (goes for everyone, not just JCDN/NGTM)

[Mika]

i should also point out that various gun control laws are not at the federal but at the state and local levels. here in alaska (at least some parts of it) guns are essential. if you live anywhere north of anchorage you need guns just to avoid getting eaten by a large bear. we also have a lot of people who hunt. so our gun regulations are more lax than say new york or california. i would push for more safety oriented gun control, like mandatory trigger locks or safes, laws on obtaining ammunition, and mandatory safety training. but banning guns is something im strongly against.

i also lived in arizona which is another gun happy state. having worked in a pawn shop where half the people who worked there either wore a gun or had one in near reach during the work day. did get to see the federal gun control in action, where make, model, serial number, store information and the personal information of the applicant are all needed, as well as a phone call to the fbi who ultimately have the last word on whether or not a sale can be made. assuming things havent changed much since then that is all the control there is at the federal level.
 

The interesting thing here is  that I was completely unaware of the fact that trigger locks or safes are not required by legalization there. This sounds almost unbelievable to me - I can't even imagine walking with a firearm without a safe! Also new was that the bears are generally aggressive in Alaska, here they prefer to avoid human at all cost - the only notable difference is when somebody gets between the mother and the cub. What I heard too was that this is not the case any more in Siberia, as the bears have became more aggressive over the time again. It would be interesting to know the levels of bears and wolves here before the firearms arrived, I'm willing to bet it was considerably higher. The side effect of this is that nowadays the large predators avoid humans, only wolves have gained some courage in the recent years. But the old saying goes, wolf does not belong in the list of native predators of this region.

What do you think of sports shooting?

[NGTM-1R]

Onus is on you, since you're claiming the majority of the general British population hold the wrong opinion as well as hinting that there is a government conspiracy behind it all.

I don't have to prove intent, since I honestly doubt it was a thing of intent when it was implemented, just a side-effect of the Troubles. The British government was handed it but that doesn't mean they won't exploit it, and that is a proposition the data will support. Your rather supercilious attitude on the subject and that of other Brits provides enough evidence for that.

This sounds almost unbelievable to me - I can't even imagine walking with a firearm without a safe!

You appear to be confusing the concept of a safe and the concept of a safety. One is a large metal box with a complex lock. The other is a mechanism to prevent firing.

[headdie]

Onus is on you, since you're claiming the majority of the general British population hold the wrong opinion as well as hinting that there is a government conspiracy behind it all.

I don't have to prove intent, since I honestly doubt it was a thing of intent when it was implemented, just a side-effect of the Troubles. The British government was handed it but that doesn't mean they won't exploit it, and that is a proposition the data will support. Your rather supercilious attitude on the subject and that of other Brits provides enough evidence for that.

The banning of hand guns was as a result of the Dunblane school shooting not the troubles, the Irish factions had access to already illegal weapons, partly thanks to sponsorship from the Irish American community