Jump to content


Photo

Gun control in US


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

Poll: gun control (private poll) (11 member(s) have cast votes)

Should there be more gun control in the US?

  1. Yes (10 votes [90.91%])

    Percentage of vote: 90.91%

  2. No (1 votes [9.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.09%

  3. I dont know (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Should automatic waepons and "launchers" be forbidden for normal citisens?

  1. Yes, both should be illegal (5 votes [71.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 71.43%

  2. No, only rockets and other very explosive guns should be illegal (2 votes [28.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 28.57%

  3. No, only automatic waepons should be illegal (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. No, both should be allowed normally (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 03 October 2017 - 10:04 AM

Do they need to change the policies about owning guns? If yes how?

Edited by Don_Homer, 07 October 2017 - 04:08 PM.

Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#2 Lonello

Lonello

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,226 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 03 October 2017 - 12:52 PM

I hoped to see a discussion about this kind of subject, as in generally what's in the news, but this is a very limited topic, better suited for a poll imho. Check to see if you can make a poll out of it would be my suggestion?


Lo

#3 Lonello

Lonello

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,226 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 03 October 2017 - 01:01 PM

More than one mass shooting per day in the US., It is significantly easier for an individual with murderous intentions to kill with a gun

 

Here's what's that like in days per month since Orlando:

 

477 Days. 521 Mass Shootings.

print-Artboard_2_copy.png

 


Lo

#4 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 03 October 2017 - 08:43 PM

What I heard was that laws about guns control became less strict under the Bush jr. government.

I like western movies but I think only police and special forces should be allowed having guns. Unfortunately this seem unrealistic in US. However the more rules about guns the less shootings. Also the less lethal the weapon the less victims. Thus I favour any change toward more gun control.

Edited by Don_Homer, 03 October 2017 - 08:45 PM.

Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#5 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 04 October 2017 - 01:37 AM

I think you meant to use the first sentence of your first post as the poll question. :)  The one you used isn’t clear as there’s already quite a bit of gun control in the US.  But guns are legal here and many are easy to obtain if you’re a law-abiding citizen.

 

What you first have to understand is that gun ownership is guaranteed under our Constitution.  It’s enshrined as a check against the potential of oppressive government.  America was founded in revolution against oppressive govt and the founders wanted to guarantee the people the ability to check future oppressive govt.  This is as baked into our way of life as free speech and it’s important to protect.
 
Every time there is a mass shooting the knee jerk emotional reaction is that there must be some legislation to stop it.  But it’s already illegal to shoot people.  And crimes committed with guns carry the heaviest penalties under the law.  Fully automatic weapons are mostly illegal and not practical to obtain for the vast majority.  And it is illegal to modify a gun to be fully automatic. 
 
You favor restricting guns to the military and police, but this is counter to the whole rationale for the Constitutional protection.  This position is really a non-starter.  Do you have a middle ground to propose?

  • Fairway likes this

#6 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,960 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 04 October 2017 - 02:33 AM

>the ability to check future oppressive govt.

 

What this is saying - is that if some people don't like something - the method advocated by the Constitution is to get a gun. No wonder mass murders are more than everyday occurrences - the constitution practically encourages it. Forget about negotiation and peaceful means - If you don't like something, shoot at it until it changes its mind (or doesn't have a mind left to change). Multiple people are dying everyday -  this is an outdated and absolutely ridiculous justification for a death-causing tool. What does this teach children? That if they don't like it when you turn off the TV they should throw fish fingers at you?  In TC when we become aware of a bad rule, we change it. Of all the rules, I've got to admit - this is a really bad one. Would it be so terrible if you could only handle a gun at a gun-range? Is being in possession of a gun so important to some that it is essential that thousands continue to die just so people can 'exercise their Constitutional right'? More like Constitutional wrong. And the military doesn't need weapons. If a human intent on a violent spree doesn't have access to a kill button then the military doesn't have much trouble taking them down with some good old-fashioned close-combat. 

 

Choice A - Loads of people dying all the time

Choice B - Way less people die

 

This is the choice. If the country really needs to rebel against an oppressive government, grab the nearest pitchfork (or did revolutions not exist until the invention of gunpowder)



#7 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 04 October 2017 - 03:36 AM

That’s ridiculous and you’re smart enough to know it.  When was the last revolution that was won with pitchforks?  I’ll take the rifle please.  And you overlook the most important part.  The guarantee of an armed populace keeps the govt in check.  Human nature hasn’t changed.  The threat of oppression doesn’t disappear because TheOptician hasn’t experienced it in his nation in his lifetime.  Ask the fine people of Venezuela about that.
 
The military doesn’t need guns?  You aren’t living the real world.  If you don’t like something shoot it?  Stupid caricature.  When you’re serious about this discussion come back to the thread.  Until then stop spouting nonsense. 
 



#8 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • WC Online Team
  • 768 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 04 October 2017 - 06:13 AM

I doubt my rifle and I are much of a match for a humvee much less a Blackhawk should I wish to resist an oppressive government.

The constitution is designed and meant to adapt. Gun ownership served a purpose to resist a tyrannical government in the 18th century. However, gun ownership no longer has that effect and it is naive to pretend a flintlock musket and AR-15 have the same capabilities.
  • Don_Homer and tobermoryx like this
I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#9 Lonello

Lonello

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,226 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 04 October 2017 - 07:50 AM

You read my mind. The Founding Fathers erected this in the times of the militia's. Made sense then. Now it's only rulesfetishism and it needs to be adapted to modern times accordingly.

 

Gun crimes are committed by criminals and criminals will get them. 

 

In this case it wasn't. This was just some law abiding citizen who worked hard his entire life, then retired at 64, got in a row with his wife who left him, went to the casino and lost all his money, and being depressed decided to go out with a BANG.

 

Guns are tools, Darth. They shouldn't be distributed this easily. I don't mind the pistol for protection. But the mitrailleur kinda assault weapons. It is very easy for a disturbed person to start a mass shooting. We've got disturbed persons over here as well but they sure are not able to commit a massacre in a moment of despair.

 

Tools enable. Better disable them.


Lo

#10 Unladen Swallow

Unladen Swallow

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 826 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 04 October 2017 - 10:36 AM

That’s ridiculous and you’re smart enough to know it.  When was the last revolution that was won with pitchforks?  I’ll take the rifle please.  And you overlook the most important part.  The guarantee of an armed populace keeps the govt in check.  Human nature hasn’t changed.  The threat of oppression doesn’t disappear because TheOptician hasn’t experienced it in his nation in his lifetime.  Ask the fine people of Venezuela about that.
 
The military doesn’t need guns?  You aren’t living the real world.  If you don’t like something shoot it?  Stupid caricature.  When you’re serious about this discussion come back to the thread.  Until then stop spouting nonsense. 
 

 

You are smart enough to know it's silly, too.

 

There are about 197 countries in the world and many of them do just fine without their populace owning guns. You paint a picture imagining those living in countries without guns as being in a dystopian 1984-esque society when this is NOT the case. 

 

Let's look at schools. People get bullied all the time at schools because kids can be cruel without realising. It's a lot worse in the US because some kids can choose to easily exact revenge upon their peers by simply taking their parent's gun and bringing it into school the next day. There's a school shooting nearly every day in the US. 

 

The threat of opposition is always here, and using guns is only one of the available solutions. In my country, the UK, the people don't have guns and neither do the police. There's another group called 'operations support' which have various weapons like taser guns and pistols. Yet we are just effective, or maybe even more effective, at stopping crime. 

 

A lot of Americans defend their right to bear arms based on "safety". In reality there is hardly ever a threat. It does more harm than good, and those heavily influenced by emotions (such as children or the mentally unstable) should definitely not have access to them. You are spouting nonsense with lines like "I need a gun because criminals can get guns too" as you are not considering virtually every other nation on Earth.  When is the last time you have felt compelled to use your gun? When is the last time you had to shoot a rogue criminal? For most people the answer is "Never". 

 

Malcolm is right on the military point. The military's arsenal is a lot stronger and more complete than a simple handgun. The difference is that the military have use for their weapons, unlike the typical American. 


Edited by Unladen Swallow, 04 October 2017 - 10:38 AM.

I used to play against a few drunken idiots in College and University. I just recently discovered this game online, playing my first matches against real-world opponents. After 100 games, I'm now one of the top 10 players in the world. 


#11 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 5,209 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 04 October 2017 - 10:57 AM

If you take your statistics, Lo, and say 527 have been killed by "mass shootings" (defined in your article as 4 or more deaths by him in one place at one time) in 477 days, that's not good, but it pales in comparison to many things. The website below claims to have "real time" causes of death statistics for the USA for 2017. I'm sure they're about right on things. This list puts the gun violence issue in a larger perspective, I would hope.

"Murder by Gun" is listed as the 23rd leading cause of US deaths for the current year, 2017. "Hospital Associated Infections", by comparison, is listed as the 10th leading cause with 9 times as many deaths as are credited to guns. So, naturally, we should be all about banning hospitals, and all the 22 causes above "Murder by Gun" first, right? Wouldn't you agree these "tools" need to be disabled before we deal with guns? Lo?

http://www.romans322...-statistics.php


Gun control is freedom control. Although the Constitution was written in the 1700's, and gun control was a sore subject for the times and was therefore enshrined in the 2nd Amendment, the Founding Fathers could not have imagined the technological advances that would follow. At the time, guns were equated with leveling the playing field against the government. But today those same guns the FF knew and clearly protected in the Constitution would indeed be like "pitchforks" against to modern weaponry. So for me the spirit of the 2nd Amendment in its purest interpretation must be saying that all weapons available to the government should be available to the people.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not actually advocating everyone being given nukes, for example. I think that as times have changed we've made sensible rules in the USA to adequately address the risks of overly-prevalent fully automatic weapons, and WMD. In this sense alone I hope that the loophole is closed on the ownership of the type of guns this Las Vegas fellow Paddock was able to possess. All the automatic weapons fire that can be heard in the tapes and is told to us NOT to be from fully automatic weapons clearly points to a horrendous loophole.

Despite this very sad recent event in Las Vegas, I do still think that we have a seasoned and reasonable approach to gun laws in the USA. I'm confident that appropriate changes in state laws will follow from the awful incident.

But there is one truth that the mass shootings in the world plainly shows. If a single, crazy gunman is willing to die, no one and no rules will be able to stop him.

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#12 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 5,209 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 04 October 2017 - 11:09 AM

 
There's a school shooting nearly every day in the US. 


Citation please!
  • Don_Homer likes this

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#13 Unladen Swallow

Unladen Swallow

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 826 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 04 October 2017 - 11:10 AM

f you take your statistics, Lo, and say 527 have been killed by "mass shootings" (defined in your article as 4 or more deaths by him in one place at one time) in 477 days, that's not good, but it pales in comparison to many things. The website below claims to have "real time" causes of death statistics for the USA for 2017. I'm sure they're about right on things. This list puts the gun violence issue in a larger perspective, I would hope.

 

Actually, not quite. A lot of the death types listed on your website are unpreventable. Heart failure for example is mainly linked to old age but is also sometimes linked to lifestyle causes such as obesity.

 

From the page you have showed, gun violence is the 4th largest* preventable death in the US, after obesity and drug related diseases. Saying that we should "ban hospitals too" is needless and stupid hyperbole. 

I counted it as 4th largest because some of the points listed on there are largely the same thing. "Drunk Driving" and "Alcohol abuse" are largely the same thing - death by alcohol. Alcohol itself isn't inherently harmful, it is a depressant drug so it naturally calms you down. It's only lethal in ridiculous, huge doses. Although there are people who overdose on Alcohol, tobacco, paracetemol (and nearly every drug) - it's only a very minute percentage of the population. Gun violence in my opinion is more indefensible, as there is virtually no benefit. 


I used to play against a few drunken idiots in College and University. I just recently discovered this game online, playing my first matches against real-world opponents. After 100 games, I'm now one of the top 10 players in the world. 


#14 Unladen Swallow

Unladen Swallow

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 826 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 04 October 2017 - 11:15 AM

Citation please!

 

Sorry I got confused with the source I found and the source Lo found. Here it is:

 

http://www.independe...r-a6676156.html

 

It's a little over 1 per day for the whole world, or about 1 per week for the US (45 recorded school shootings between Jan 2015 and Oct 2015). 


  • Don_Homer likes this

I used to play against a few drunken idiots in College and University. I just recently discovered this game online, playing my first matches against real-world opponents. After 100 games, I'm now one of the top 10 players in the world. 


#15 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 04 October 2017 - 11:21 AM

Attention: I chanced the poll question a bit. Thanks Darth!
  • Lonello likes this

Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#16 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 5,209 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 04 October 2017 - 11:44 AM

The statistics of gun violence, sad as they are, will be nothing in comparison to what will happen in the event the government turns on the people.

Why Europeans forget that one of Hitler's first major acts was to take Weimar Republic gun registrations and use them to identify and locate gun owners. Rules were extremely tight for ownership of guns in Germany under Hitler.

See article. https://www.google.c..._U3i8q1&ampcf=1

What was the result of that whole period of time again?

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#17 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,960 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 04 October 2017 - 12:56 PM

When I suggest to grab a pitchfork, this is being sarcastic. There are peaceful and democratic methods to bring about change - times have moved on. As others have said - whilst back in the day civilians bearing arms posed a genuine threat to a government - that is no longer the case. If you wanted to overthrow the government today, which method is more likely to bring success - a military or a democratic attack? No comparison. Military success would require rebels to have a better army than the entire nation. Democratic success needs more people than not (generally speaking) to simply agree with the cause. This right to bear arms is (and I don't see anyone arguing otherwise) completely ineffective against overthrowing tyranny.

 

Which brings us to the real reason - as is becoming apparent - why gun proponents defend their position. The founding fathers have enshrined it. It is my right - it is about freedom - it is part of who I am - it makes me proud to be an American - this part of the Constitution is symbolic. And therefore whilst now it is completely outdated and ineffective in achieving what it was designed to achieve - it is untouchable - it possesses an almost religious quality.

 

Freedom doesn't truly exist in a collective. You can't go around freely attacking your neighbours and then refuse to go to jail. You can't freely sell homemade jars advertised as jam that are actually made from poison. This is because you having that freedom would impinge on the freedom and safety of another individual. And this is the point. Governments and laws recognise that some freedoms have to be denied for the collective safety of the nation - hence why most poison jam businesses get shut down.

 

So you can see it as surrendering your freedom if you like, or you can see it as choosing public safety over personal freedom. When you choose public safety, you're effectively choosing public freedom - because it is hard to be free when you're dead.



#18 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,960 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 04 October 2017 - 01:03 PM

Gary>If you take your statistics, Lo, and say 527 have been killed by "mass shootings"

 

It isn't 527 killed by Mass Shootings - it is 527 separate 'mass shootings' (defined as 4 or more deaths in each case)



#19 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 5,209 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 04 October 2017 - 01:57 PM

You're quite right. That stat should have been 521 (not 527) mass shootings in 477 days of at least 4 people each time. Thanks for the correction.

Although I disagree with both your ideas, The TheOptician, I appreciate both yours and US's well-written pieces.

The ownership of guns may not allow us to throw off tyranny, but as we are the ants versus the grasshoppers we can as an armed citizenry make it terrifically difficult to tyrannize completely. It's more 'stupid hyperbole', but even Hitler knew the importance of rounding up the guns. To live in our "collective" as you so depressingly put it (sounds like a euphemism for a cage) doesn't require that we give up our weapons, only that we are sensible about their use. Without a gun you will one day have to eat the poison jam from some Jack-booted thug pointing his gun at you. With a gun you can postpone that date.

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#20 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,960 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 04 October 2017 - 03:11 PM

'Case Study'

 

https://www.facebook...16864731762991/






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users