Firearm/Gun Debate and Discussion

[Pinwheel]

It's becoming extremely apparent that when threads about people getting shot pop up here, they turn into gun debates time and time again and have started to derail about every one I've seen. So all gun discussion/debate goes here from now on. If this thread turns out like the thread in General Discussion did(ie. name calling, acting stupid in general), don't expect it to be ignored.

So yeah. IN SUMMARY:

- Don't be a complete idiot.
- Play nice with others.


Now, thank you.

 

[Oracle Spockanort]

Gun laws should be more harsh in America. This isn't infringing on any constitutional rights. Everybody has the rights to bear arms, but it should be within reason. In countries where they have stricter laws, you find that they have lower crime rates and gun-related deaths. We shouldn't have thousands of people dying from guns every year in a country so "advanced" as ours. It's ridiculous that every time you turn on the news it's about some shooting or armed robbery.

Will this stop crazy people from killing others? No, but it will make it harder for them to get access to a gun so they can kill.

/one opinion

 

[Johnny Stooge]

Yeah, it is a tragedy but there is not statistical evidence that these tragedies won't occur when you start restricting access to weaponry incredibly heavily. i'm not saying the current system is perfect, but i'm not in favor of starting to tread on constitutional rights when there isn't a solid evidence that this will work. education on mental illness, gun safety, etc should be the first steps taken beforehand.

Yes. There is. I diddlying live there. 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior to the Port Arthur massacre and subsequent gun reform in 1996. The amount of mass shootings in the 16 years since? diddlying zero.

http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf

honestly, fuck your constitutional rights. I live in the only Western democracy without a constitutional or legislative bill of rights. I don't even have "the right" to freedom of speech. Fuck your second amendment. It's complete paranoid bullshit.

i feel that there is already such a large supply of them that it would be more than enough to meet demands, especially considering they can be be re-used extensively, is this not true?

You haven't read much about gun reform have you? You destroy them.

 

[Bukkake Sensei]

honestly, diddly your constitutional rights. I live in the only Western democracy without a constitutional or legislative bill of rights. I don't even have "the right" to freedom of speech. diddly your second amendment. It's complete paranoid bullshit.

All results aside, your ideas just do not reflect the wishes of the American public my man.

 

[Deleted member 36435]

Yes. There is. I diddlying live there. 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior to the Port Arthur massacre and subsequent gun reform in 1996. The amount of mass shootings in the 16 years since? diddlying zero.

Do you think this would work in America because of cultural differences and the sheer size of our population? Also, our surrounding areas such as Mexico? I'm not 100% sure of this, but I feel as if this type of reform would not work to the same extent is has in Australia in the US because of how we perceive firearms and how our society is.
My quick search of this says that roughly 85% of the population was in favor of this reform, I don't think 85% of the United States population would be. Would this reform been nearly as effective with 60%? Or less?

You haven't read much about gun reform have you? You destroy them.

Unless surrendering your weapon is mandatory, which is again treading on constitutional rights, there will still be a large enough supply to meet demand, I feel.

Again, I don't like the current laws of buying firearms in a lot of states, but unfortunately due to the constitution and each state governing their own firearm laws it is something you simply can't throw away.

 

[XIII Heartless]

This would be another issue I have with many people's reply that we have a right to bear arms. Why? Why is this such an important right to have? Just because its traditional doesn't mean it doesn't need to be done away with if its proven detrimental to society. Vic tried to draw a parallel between getting rid of our 2nd amendment rights and losing our freedomof speech, etc., but no such parallel exists. No one's proposing we get rid of all old precedents just for the sake of them being old, we're proposing it because steps need to be taken forward. People who are unable to let go of the past for the sake of tradition are doomed to repeat history.

 

[Deleted member 36435]

Vic tried to draw a parallel between getting rid of our 2nd amendment rights and losing our freedomof speech, etc., but no such parallel exists.

I didn't say that we losing our second amendment rights and our freedom of speech are the same, however, if one part of the constitution is allowed to be changed, why can't the whole thing be?

 

[Pinwheel]

This would be another issue I have with many people's reply that we have a right to bear arms. Why? Why is this such an important right to have? Just because its traditional doesn't mean it doesn't need to be done away with if its proven detrimental to society. Vic tried to draw a parallel between getting rid of our 2nd amendment rights and losing our freedomof speech, etc., but no such parallel exists. No one's proposing we get rid of all old precedents just for the sake of them being old, we're proposing it because steps need to be taken forward. People who are unable to let go of the past for the sake of tradition are doomed to repeat history.

Because America is stubborn as hell, and quite frankly, babied. Our culture basically provokes us into believing everything is a right, and we have tons of freedom.

 

[Sorax 122]

I didn't say that we losing our second amendment rights and our freedom of speech are the same, however, if one part of the constitution is allowed to be changed, why can't the whole thing be?

What you seem to forget is that the Constitution was written in a way that was meant to be changed to fit the times. The Constitution is supposed to be changed if there is a good reason to do so. Gun laws must be stricter in America in order for incidents like the recent Newtown shooting to be fewer in number. There needs to be a lengthy screening process for people trying to obtain firearms at anytime. Also, things like assault rifles must be stopped from being sold. No normal person should need an AK-47 or glocs. Handguns are permissible for self-defense and I could see why someone would want one just in case.

 

[Johnny Stooge]

All results aside, your ideas just do not reflect the wishes of the American public my man.

This is probably the worst thing about the American gun culture. You know you have a problem. But you won't do anything to fix it.

Do you think this would work in America because of cultural differences and the sheer size of our population? Also, our surrounding areas such as Mexico? I'm not 100% sure of this, but I feel as if this type of reform would not work to the same extent is has in Australia in the US because of how we perceive firearms and how our society is.
My quick search of this says that roughly 85% of the population was in favor of this reform, I don't think 85% of the United States population would be. Would this reform been nearly as effective with 60%? Or less?

I'm not saying you copy our policies verbatim. But the US needs to have a national conversation and you've got a working model to look at that shows successful results. The first part is the willingness to fix something that is broken (relevant). Then you need to figure out how you can apply it to America.

Unless surrendering your weapon is mandatory, which is again treading on constitutional rights, there will still be a large enough supply to meet demand, I feel.

Again, I don't like the current laws of buying firearms in a lot of states, but unfortunately due to the constitution and each state governing their own firearm laws it is something you simply can't throw away.

"Because the Australian Constitution prevents the taking of property without just compensation the federal government introduced the Medicare Levy Amendment Act 1996 to raise the predicted cost of A$500 million through a one-off increase in the Medicare levy. The gun buy-back scheme started on 1 October 1996 and concluded on 30 September 1997.^[23] The buyback purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 firearms, mostly semi-auto .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. Only Victoria provided a breakdown of types destroyed, and in that state less than 3% were military style semi-automatic rifles."

Gun politics in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compulsory buyback and amnesty scheme.

I didn't say that we losing our second amendment rights and our freedom of speech are the same, however, if one part of the constitution is allowed to be changed, why can't the whole thing be?

"If we let gays marry what's to stop people from marrying their dogs?"

You're arguing the slippery slope. You know better than that.

I mean, it's called the Second Amendment. That means it wasn't originally a part of your constitution, right? If you can add things, why can't you remove them?

 

[XIII Heartless]

I didn't say that we losing our second amendment rights and our freedom of speech are the same, however, if one part of the constitution is allowed to be changed, why can't the whole thing be?

You're operatingunder the assumptio that anyone thinks the whole thing couldn't be. We don't. If something in the Constitution fails to work with the times, I say let it go, and I'm thinking a lot of other people here debating about this agree.

 

[Deleted member 36435]

What you seem to forget is that the Constitution was written in a way that was meant to be changed to fit the times. The Constitution is supposed to be changed if there is a good reason to do so. Gun laws must be stricter in America in order for incidents like the recent Newtown shooting to be fewer in number. There needs to be a lengthy screening process for people trying to obtain firearms at anytime. Also, things like assault rifles must be stopped from being sold. No normal person should need an AK-47 or glocs. Handguns are permissible for self-defense and I could see why someone would want one just in case.

If my memory serves me well, the rights within the Bill of Rights are guaranteed and nothing can be passed that infringes upon them.

You're operatingunder the assumptio that anyone thinks the whole thing couldn't be. We don't. If something in the Constitution fails to work with the times, I say let it go, and I'm thinking a lot of other people here debating about this agree.

The whole thing SHOULDN'T be able to be changed, every right inside the constitution can be abused to some extent and probably has been, and I'm a firm believer that the constitution should be upheld.

 

[Taochan]

It's really not a huge deal to reform your gun laws. Canada acknowledges the rights of gun owners while maintaining much stricter policies than your country. We have to jump through hoops to own them, but I think that's more than fair.

 

[Bukkake Sensei]

I don't really feel like having another debate about the merits of gun control legislation (mostly because I already won the last one), but I'll put it this way, trying to ban guns in America is like trying to ban kangaroos in Australia...maybe there's an effective solution somewhere in between no gun restrictions at all and a straight up ban on all firearms, but confiscating and destroying massive quantities of guns would never ever ever go over well in the states...

 

[Sorax 122]

If my memory serves me well, the rights within the Bill of Rights are guaranteed and nothing can be passed that infringes upon them.The whole thing SHOULDN'T be able to be changed, every right inside the constitution can be abused to some extent and probably has been, and I'm a firm believer that the constitution should be upheld.

That is why we have amendments that we can use to change and remove something from the constitution that needs to be fixed. The Bill of Rights are basically the first 10 amendments created to ensure that the government did not have all the control. Keep in mind, the Bill of Rights was created in the 1700s. It was a different time, and I'm sure if it was written now the 2nd amendment would be more strict than it is.

 

[Reagan Rayden]

It would help if we knew how these men that murdered these children actually obtained their weaponry. Find a way to work around that.

But like Bukkake mentioned, even if we knew, even if the way to go about stopping people like this from murdering innocent lives was by way of some kind of gun ban the American populace would NEVER allow that to happen.

 

[Johnny Stooge]

I don't really feel like having another debate about the merits of gun control legislation (mostly because I already won the last one), but I'll put it this way, trying to ban guns in America is like trying to ban kangaroos in Australia...maybe there's an effective solution somewhere in between no gun restrictions at all and a straight up ban on all firearms, but confiscating and destroying massive quantities of guns would never ever ever go over well in the states...

While I may lefty wet dreams over the complete deweaponization of the world. I know it's wholly unrealistic. I never thought a blanket ban was the solution. And it's not Australia's. This is what we have: Gun politics in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. To own a firearm you need to have a "genuine reason" and a "genuine need".

 

[Sorax 122]

While I may lefty wet dreams over the complete deweaponization of the world. I know it's wholly unrealistic. I never thought a blanket ban was the solution. And it's not Australia's. This is what we have: Gun politics in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. To own a firearm you need to have a "genuine reason" and a "genuine need".

Agreed. I think a total gun-ban would be a big waste of time. However, that doesn't mean laws pertaining to guns shouldn't be stricter.

 

[ROXAS_32]

It would help if we knew how these men that murdered these children actually obtained their weaponry. Find a way to work around that.

But like Bukkake mentioned, even if we knew, even if the way to go about stopping people like this from murdering innocent lives was by way of some kind of gun ban the American populace would NEVER allow that to happen.

IF you are referring to what happened in CT, The guns were legally registered to his mother who was apparently a gun collector.
source: Cnn.com

I don't think a gun ban is the answer any ways. I think making them extremely difficult for the average Joe to to purchase them legally, would help a bit. Also buy back programs might help to. I know a few counties around me has buy back programs during the summer.

 

[Reagan Rayden]

IF you are referring to what happened in CT, The guns were legally registered to his mother who was apparently a gun collector.
source: Cnn.com

Being able to "collect" guns shouldn't be a thing.