1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

American Gun Control

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by chess-z, Oct 3, 2017.

  1. You appear to be agreeing and disagreeing with me at the same time? Yes, bigger weapons would involve more civilian casualties, but that's not relevant to the point you are being pressed on. A citation is not required to know that showing up with a knife to a gun fight puts you at a disadvantage. Your point about civilian casualties is a distraction tactic, LDSman. I'd let this one go.

    I sympathize with the right wing's argument on this. There is historical precedent for governments turning against their own people, often violently. It isn't a boogeyman that doesn't exist, unlike transgender people molesting children in bathrooms and so on and so forth. The hypothetical scenario deserves to be engaged with seriously and not simply dismissed as conspiratorial. However, Tehrun's point is something we need to grapple with. How do we balance having a deterrent to a potentially oppressive regime with a healthy and functioning society? One could argue that at this point, an oppressive regime would be less deadly than the state of current gun control laws.

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...mericans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/

    I'm also failing to understand if how, as you say, 2/3'ds of gun deaths are suicides, that negates the need for stricter gun control legislation. We tightly control substances like narcotics and other powerful drugs for example, which people commonly use to end their lives.

    ...

    Well, I'm happy you answered, anyways. But damn. I had to wipe the crust out of my eyes a few times on this one.

    You're being a little obtuse. Supreme court opinion pieces are often lengthy and filled with complex, legal jargon. I didn't argue against it, I asked you to do the work and quote the specific parts of the majority opinion that support you. And yes, I would say the same thing to anybody who cited any expert on any subject. It doesn't matter if it was "these scientists, these judges, these economists" etc. You can't just cite an authority without putting their specific argument into context and dip. :/
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2017
  2. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    Someone tried to use their shoe once on a plane and that caused so much panic it make flying a million times worse.

    It's kinda scary that so many things get immediate regulation without much fuss, but guns don't. I kinda think part of it is some people just think a government with more control is oppressive by default, rather than being one that can provide things like social services for everyone. Just look at how many people who receive a lot of government assistance want the government out of their lives, not knowing what they would lose.
     
  3. Teruhn

    Teruhn Member

    First, dismissing 20,000+ gun deaths as just being suicides is...frustrating, to say the least. How much more likely is someone to commit suicide if they have access to a gun? I.E. what is the rate of someone with suicidal tendencies committing suicide at baseline and then what happens if you then hand suicidal people guns? And "Blame the CDC" is not a defense for lack of governmental research into a major public health issue. Regardless of whether research was flawed (I would like to see examples of the "flawed" research used to strip CDC gun research funding), you simply can't ignore a singular cause of thousands of deaths as a government for the people. That's dereliction of duty.

    Second, investigating illegal obtainment of guns is made drastically more difficult by lack of searchable databases of gun ownership. Are you amenable to a manufacturer-operated database of gun owners for any gun that manufacturer sales? If not, why? And more importantly...You keep talking about fixing problems post-hoc. Why is it acceptable to be reactive to gun deaths when literally every other means of premature death is approached from a proactive perspective? We don't treat cancer after it's spread too far - we screen for it, diagnose it, research ways to treat it. We don't wait for a car crash to analyze what's wrong - we constantly update safety standards and laws and traffic flow to lessen the chance of death. So why in the case of guns do we have to wait for someone to snap before we act?

    Edit: Missed this one, sorry.
    Specifically, I'm talking about how many cases of "Self-defense" end up in the "defender" shooting the instigator/attacker. How many cases of self-defense are specifically a result of someone else owning a gun? How often does owning a gun actually lead to an escalation of a conflict that would otherwise normally be solved non-fatally? When is it considered justifiable to defend yourself at the expense of another's life?

    On a more philosophical stint:
    What does putting a person's property before another's life do to one's psyche? How does that damage one's world view?
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2017
  4. EnglishALT

    EnglishALT Well-Known Member

    Just from living away from America for a few years, I really have changed my mind on the second amendment. There is something comforting to knowing that the firework going off in the distance isn't actually a gun. However with so many guns in America, and lets face it America's inability to keep contraband like drugs from flowing in, how does anyone expect new gun laws from really stopping shootings. I mean new drug laws has not slowed the number of drug users, why would gun laws make any difference?
     
  5. Teruhn

    Teruhn Member

    No one's expecting drastic change over night. You have to treat gun control like a drug dealer - small doses that seem innocuous to get them hooked and then up the dosage from there until your mark can't imagine living without it.

    The only difference here is gun control saves lives instead of ruining them.
     
  6. EnglishALT

    EnglishALT Well-Known Member

    I think there is a big possibility it would save some lives, especially when it comes with children finding their parents' loaded gun. Yet I still do not see how it would stem the tide of violence in inner cities where so many shootings happen. If anything it would just send many people to find more illegal methods to obtain firearms, which would hurt the preventive measures already in place like back ground checks and serial numbers on fire arms.
     
  7. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    I'm agreeing that lesser weapons make the fight harder. I'm not agreeing that means surrender all weapons. I'm not the one claiming that military hardware would result in fewer civilian deaths!

    Thanks.

    I'd disagree heartily with that assertion. Sure if people didn't fight back and the gov't didn't start killing select members of it citizens or institute policies that lead to the starvation of millions of its people.... But I digress. Separate argument.

    Interesting link.

    The suicide rates seem to function independently of gun ownership. Sure some areas with stricter gun control show fewer gun suicides. However, they also show higher suicide rates in other means. Look at Japan. High gun control, high suicide rate. And then there is the argument that a person made a choice to commit suicide. Sure, I agree that it was the wrong choice and I wish that they could have gotten the help they needed or even listened to their relatives that told them they were loved and what happened to their son wasn't their fault...

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide


    Anyway. At what point does the mantra of "their body, their choice" stop being applied?

    We also don't completely ban narcotics for misuse. Imagine the outrage. Sorry that you are dying and in a lot of pain. Here's an aspirin. The better pain killers were banned because someone else abused them.


    Yeah, they used a shoe bomb, not just their shoe. It'd have been a bit silly to change regulations for a man using just a shoe.

    Maybe because there are already a lot of regulations that aren't really being enforced? Look at the prosecution rate for people trying to buy firearms when on the no buy list?

    In some cases that is true. Look at the people who lose the use of land because the gov't decided a frog might live there.

    See above response to Baba. And those kind of numbers are hard to come by. Likely because people frown on researchers giving suicidal people a gun. A big problem is that suicide with a gun is more effective. No second chances usually. I also try to distinguish between suicide and non-suicide because they have different causes, different solutions.

    Google it then. CDC biased gun research works. The CDC went from simple research into political advocacy.

    Based on the past behaviors of anti gun groups? No. These groups would leak the names of gun owners or use the database to target owners.

    How would you screen for a behavior that might not happen for decades? The problem is that anti gun people see guns as the problem. The guns aren't the problem. If it was the guns, the millions of gun owners would have proven that claim. Guns are a tool used by the problem, be it caused by mental health, greed, anger or terrorism.

    See above.

    200-300 per year. That doesn't count the tens of thousands or more that don't result in someone getting shot.

    No way to tell.

    Surprisingly few. Why? Because gun owners know that they would be under a lot of scrutiny if they shoot someone. They are lots of cases of over zealous prosecutors going after gun owners. (I could have sworn I saw a reference to a Florida case.)

    Usually when you fear for your life and the other person has expressed an intent to hurt or kill you.

    I dunno. My world view is just fine. I'm not going to kill someone so my owning a gun doesn't mean a thing as far as gun deaths go.

    Nice see a gun control person admitting that they want to pass small things to get an eventual ban. And gun control doesn't ruin lives? I have to laugh at that. Guy in Jersey who had lived in a different state where he bought a gun legally. He moved to NJ and tried to get a permit for his gun. (Need a permit to buy a gun or to conceal carry a gun) Got denied. Eventually got pulled over by police for a traffic ticket. Found his gun locked in the trunk of his car unloaded but with the ammo locked in the case with the gun. NJ arrested him, charged him with a variety of guns and eventually sentenced him to 7 years in prison. Inmates thought he was an arms dealer based on the number of charges. The governor commuted his sentence after 7 months or so. He is still a felon. Lost custody of his kids, can't get a good job, can't get a good apartment. Tell me. Legally bought firearm. Who's life was saved? Who's life was ruined? New York regularly arrests and charges people who are found to have ammunition in a checked bag at the airport. Citizens who can legally own firearms. Not just convicted felons.

    Accidental rates of child shootings have been steadily dropping for years.

    Accidental rates of death, at least for 2007, showed higher for a lot of other things.

    http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/accidental-deaths/

    Yes, it's terrible when a child dies in a needless event. People need to be smarter about where they store weapons around children. I have a nice lock box and a trigger lock to use if any children are visiting my home.

    Now I'm getting bored with people not responding to points I raise or refutations I make. A debate is supposed to go back and forth. So I'm probably going to do something else. Say something interesting or new and I may respond.

    In summary, the 2nd covers gun ownership. See various Supreme Court rulings on that. The media makes a big deal about assault rifles but handguns kill more people. Heck, physical violence killed more people than rifles last time I checked. If you want to argue that "if one life is saved" by instituting a new gun law, then the inverse should be considered as well. If a gun saves one life, then what? Is a gun owner's life not just as important as someone else killed by a gun?
    I also see a lot of anti gun groups lying to people. See groups that do things like list the Boston Bombers as "victims" of gun violence or the videos of guns mislabeled as rifles when they are shotguns or that ridiculous USA Today video of the chainsaw bayonet. The misleading arguments on "armor piercing bullets", the ******** claims of "internet gun sales" or any number of lies or misleading claims. Especially amusing when an anti gun politician is caught owning a gun, having armed bodyguards, or even caught selling guns to actual terrorists.

    Guns are a great equalizer. They let people who are weak and frail defend themselves against thugs and criminals. Owning a gun also means that I don't have to depend on someone else for protection. When it counts, the police are minutes to hours away.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2017
  8. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    My solution is to gather all of the Dragon Balls and use my wish to make all guns and methods of producing guns vanish completely. No more gun deaths, ever.

    Guns are the great equalizer as long as people have money for guns.
     
  9. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    Japan's suicide rates are kind of a specific cultural problem they're trying to fix as well. I'm not the most well versed, but it seems to be a strong desire to succeed at a young age, and failing is just too hard to bear. But that's more the reason behind it rather than what they use for suicide.

    Plus it seems you want to fight fire with fire with crime, not put the fire out. I'd rather focus on what would stop the criminals from becoming criminals in the first place, that way no one needs to shoot anyone.

    Also I think it's weird when people fantasize about having to use their gun on another person.
     
  10. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    Yep. Making that happen outside of magic is basically impossible. Give my best to Goku when you see him.



    Yep It bugs me when gun control measures add additional prices to buying a gun. Look at the places that charge hundreds of dollars for permits or mandatory classes that serve zero purpose.

    True enough. More an example to show that suicide rates vary for any number of reasons and aren't caused by guns.

    Fighting fire with fire is an actual thing. So, I'm not sure where you were going with this?

    So would I. I'm also aware that sometimes people want to be criminals and its rather hard to convince them that is a bad choice to make.

    If you own any type of weapon that you plan to use for self defense, you need to consider how you would handle a situation if it occurs. Some of the military and police train to not freeze if they have to shoot at a human target.

    I agree its creepy if someone is fantasizing over killing someone or watching someone die and is salivating about it.
     
  11. Teruhn

    Teruhn Member

    I'm kind of lazy to respond on a sentence-by-sentence basis, but I'll try to at least comment on the bulk of your responses.

    First, I'm all for a non-biased research group doing gun research to scientifically ascertain whether wide-spread gun ownership is a net benefit to American society. Who that would be? I don't know. If you think the CDC is biased and I think NRA-backed groups are biased, who do we trust to do such studies? I can certainly say no one that would be funded by the government for either of us (Or for me, the current one at least), correct? That goes for suicide and homicide gun casualties, and preferably an over-all impact on American culture as a whole (Though admittedly, I can't think of a means and methods for such a study). My next question is, if such a study is done and is verified to be unbiased, would you accept whatever those results are and push for legislation based on the results of said research? I.E. if targeted, peer-reviewed and replicated research proves that assault rifles are a significant net negative on American society, would you be amenable to limiting or banning assault rifles?

    The reason I ask is that if you aren't open to logical solutions backed by scientific evidence, there's really no point in debate at all.

    As for screening for behavior that may lead to gun violence - a disturbing pattern, especially with recent mass shooters, is that a good portion of them had a history of domestic abuse (And they were men and mostly white. But we shouldn't be making policy based on demographics). So an example of a policy I would support is additional requirements on any gun applicant that requires a mental health screening and additional training and limits on how many/what types of gun they can buy if they were arrested for domestic abuse. The domestic abuse check could even fall off after a long period of time, like a decade or two.

    As far as a database, did you not recognize that I specified it should be manufacturer-run? Obviously it would only be accessible for background checks/law enforcement requests similar to phone records, etc. So would that not alleviate any worries of anti-gun groups outing gun owners? Furthermore - and this isn't so much a debate question as legitimate curiosity - what exactly is the fear of being outed as a gun owner? Discrimination? Certainly wouldn't happen in my community.

    My point on all of the questioning regarding taking a life isn't so much meant for you specifically as it is for the average gun owner in my area - I live in a deeply conservative state where everyone and their dog has a gun, and from my lived experience I can say that most of the people in my area are more than willing to shoot someone that trespasses on their property without even questioning first. And that's not a joke or exaggeration - it nearly happened to my father at least once that I know of, despite him simply being lost and suffering from Alzheimer's. I'm not saying all or most gun owners are like that, but it is a legitimate concern of mine. Why is it acceptable for those people to own a gun?

    And you seem to be misunderstanding me on gun escalation - my exact question is if people act more belligerently when they know they have the defense of a gun. I'm not sure if it's possible to research ethically, but my common sense is telling me that if you're inclined to be belligerent but aren't due to fear of retaliation, you're more likely to be aggressive knowing that a gun can get you out of most situations you'd get into. Again, this is lived experience - what should be a simple dispute over a small monetary transaction has at bare minimum once been turned into a life-threatening situation involving someone with a lack of self-control and a gun. Why does that guy have a right to a gun?

    Finally, in response to gun control ruining lives: It is your responsibility as a responsible gun owner to know all gun laws of the state you live in. If you get arrested for owning a gun when you shouldn't, that's on you. If you can't get licensing for a gun you own, it should be stored properly at home or returned.

    I guess you could say my entire stance boils down to a deep mistrust of humanity in general, much along the same lines of your deep mistrust of government. But if your entire argument boils down to a feeling of need for self-defense, can you give me a legitimate argument for owning automatic weapons or a large stockpile of guns? Because - lived experience again - I know people that own 20+ guns and last I checked you could only possibly use two at a single time. The only reasonable use I can foresee for that many guns for one person is in pre-loaded shooting at large groups of people. Same with automatic weapons.

    And coming to a realization at the end of this post, I'm not so much for gun control as I am for gun owner screening.
     
  12. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    Apologies for the delay in replying. You raise interesting points.

    Fair enough.

    If the methodology is clearly laid out and the data open for review, it probably wouldn't matter. Though I'd want a way to start charting defensive gun usage. A lot of it doesn't get reported or counted because no crime occurred!
    Definitely a harder thing to figure out. Especially with how diverse the culture in the US is. Could be a benefit in one area and a negative in another.

    Sure. I don't believe that will happen. The very term is a media driven issue. Just look at the Clinton assault weapons ban and how that worked. Or well, didn't.

    Problem is that logical answer differ from people to people. Kids drowning in pools? Logic to one person says "Ban pools. No pools, kids can't drown." A different person say "Logically, make it mandatory that all kids get swimming lessons." Even little babies can learn tricks to not drown.

    Yep.

    ANd if you look at the non-mass shootings, it trends higher to black. So definitely no policies based on race or gender. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/gun-deaths/

    Iffy on this. Too many divorce lawyers telling their female clients to make domestic abuse claims to support their divorce chances. If convicted, then no guns for at least a decade. Significant other must also testify after ten to see if rights reinstated.


    Even then, it's possible to have a database hacked. Reasons not to be outed? Stalkers, angry exes, people that live in areas that aren't as pro-gun. Imagine that your immediate coworkers don't like guns. They find out that you own a gun. Now every time you get irritated about something, they complain that you are scaring them. You might "snap" and kill them all. Or if you are a parent and now you are constantly getting welfare checks by "concerned neighbors" that you might be leaving a gun out where your kids can get to it. Or that the local anti-gun nut starts "swatting" you and calls 911 all the time to report hostage or suicide issues. One group actually told people to do that. "Call 911 anytime you see a gun even if its just in a holster and they aren't doing anything illegal. Tell 911 that you are scared. They have to respond." They didn't care when the potentially negative aspects of that were explained. I know an author that calls the local police and highway patrol office to explain that he has various people that absolutely hate him and will periodically call the cops to try to swat him or something. He provides the proof and the contact info to the last police office so that it can be verified that way as well.
    What do the dogs usually carry? My dog needs something.
    That sucks. Some areas, it is really dangerous to confront intruders. Look at places near the southern border.


    No way to tell. Some people will, some people won't. The opposite question also applies. Some people will intentionally escalate things against unarmed, weaker people. Why should that be allowed?

    Until someone does something illegal, there is no reason to take a Constitutional Right away. If you might murder someone, should you go to jail? If you might rape someone, should you wear a chastity belt?

    Ah, but he did follow the laws. Jersey has a permit needed to buy a gun. He wasn't living in Jersey when he bought it. Jersey has a permit to carry concealed a gun. He didn't have one. When he moved, he placed the unloaded, disassembled gun in a locked case in his trunk in accordance with the state and federal laws for transporting guns. The judge at his trial refused to allow the jury to consider the fact that he was moving to a different residence when the police searched his car and found the gun. Jersey wanted to make an example out of him.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Aitken
    http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/15
    /brian-aitkens-mistake

    http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/justice-for-brian-aitken/
    https://www.gun-tests.com/news/news...gainst-Brian-Aitken_13952-1.html#.WhjRRzdryM8
    Two of the three charges eventually dismissed. Still a felon, still barred from seeing his son, very difficult to get a good job or even move.


    Because I can? Riots break out in my area and I need to arm the neighbors to help defend us all? (See Korean vendors with rifles on top of their stores during LA riots.) Because as a non-felon and free man in the USA, I can own pretty much whatever I can pay for. Different guns have different uses. Each shoots differently. Some are investments, others are collectibles, others are sentimental or have history to them. Because I can.
    See above answer.

    And depending on who is running the screening, it amounts to the same thing. See DC, New Jersey, New York City, etc.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2017
  13. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    "Because I can" is pretty much an is/ought fallacy down to its most inane. Just because you can doesn't me you should be able to.
     
  14. Teruhn

    Teruhn Member

    A Howlitzer. (Yes I realize that's a cannon, but I couldn't miss the opportunity to make an arms-related doggo pun.)

    As for the rest of your post, I'll mull it over and respond without gut reactions.
     
  15. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    Why not? I’m not a felon. I’m a citizen of the United States. As such, I have certain Rights and Freedoms I can exercise.

    People do lots of things because they can.

    Edit:

    So if you are an adult, aren’t a felon, aren’t mentally disturbed, why can’t you own an item?


    Edit 2: anything by Smith and Westie is a good dog gun.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2017
  16. Bananarama

    Bananarama The light is coming

    That doesn't mean they should. If your goal is to defend yourself, then owning a large stockpile of weapons, as Teruhn previously stated, contributes nothing special to that. Nobody has a valid reason to own that many guns at once.

    I have no problem with allowing people to have guns, but it should be within reason, with more restrictions, and it definitely shouldn't be a constitutional right.
     
  17. BronzeHeart92

    BronzeHeart92 Active Member

    Yeah, I support banning the 2nd Amendment right here and now. Never again shall USA fall prey to guns.

    https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=400344

    Here's an anti-2nd Amendment thread I made in an another forum. Can this thread contribute to this discussion in a meaningful way? That's what I hope at least.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2017
  18. Gizmoduck

    Gizmoduck Burns eternally hot

    I'm the opposite and I find extreme gun control to be the most counter-productive measures around.

    The easiest example I can give is: Could anyone hold up an NRA meeting or a police station, any sort of place with lots of guns in responsible hands?
    It's the same principle.

    Tougher gun laws don't stop criminals. Criminals don't follow laws; it only makes it more difficult for citizens to arm themselves for protection.

    What I like too is conceal laws benefit those who choose not to carry too, as any would-be criminal wouldn't know for sure who is or isn't.

    Things like banning the 2nd amendment though are simply ludicrous to me.
     
  19. PrinceOfFacade

    PrinceOfFacade Ghost-Type Master

    The issue with that is most acts of gun violence in the United States are done with legal firearms.

    As of right now, there is actually no evidence supporting gun ownership contributing to safer environments. In fact, according to long-standing 2017 research reporter from environmental biologist and science writer Melinda Moyer, the majority of Americans who own a gun has never actually used them. Within her research were 2015 findings from Harvard University, which states that gun violence is at least 7% more likely to occur in areas where there are more guns than areas without them (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/).

    In my hometown of Chicago, which is known for its violent crime (though it isn't nearly as bad as the media makes it out to be), the majority of gun violence committed in the city is done with licensed guns, matched with nation's ratio. This is due to the city's incredibly strict gun control laws, which limits the amount of residents who actually carry. Thus, if a Chicagoan commits a crime with a gun, it is likely they own it.

    I'm not against gun ownership, myself. Hell, I come from a family of soldiers, cops, and Black Panther members. Not one of us has a problem with blowing someone's head off. lol What I do have a problem with, however, are people being able to purchase guns they have no formal training in. In most states, you can legally purchase any firearm available to you, whether you've trained with it or not, so long as you have a license to carry. This I find to be incredibly irresponsible and reckless.

    In the United States, certain licenses are required to drive certain vehicles. Why don't we do the same for firearms? This is [part of] the solution I feel is best. There should be a system in place where a person must have the precise certification to purchase a particular firearm. Most gun owners are responsible gun owners (though that might not last very long), and thus erecting a system that enforces responsible gun ownership can potentially restrict the amount of gun violence. Remember, the majority of gun violence in this country is committed with legal guns. Therefore, this system, in theory at least, has the potential to work.
     
  20. BronzeHeart92

    BronzeHeart92 Active Member

    I'm honestly tired of repeating this debate over and over. I've long since realised I'm probably never going to make anyone pro-gun see sense. So I might as well use this as a learning experience instead.

    So here's a legitimate question. What is it that makes America so special? Why is it that people in the US are so convinced that gun control will never work there when it has worked in literally every other first world country that has implemented it? Someone explain to me what makes the US so vastly different from similar nations.

    You can say it's the gangs, but there's gangs in the UK, Australia, Japan etc etc too. Plus, all of those guns started life off being made and sold by legal manufacturers. On top of that, which we can see from the Chicago situation, a lot of the guns used in gang crime are just bought across state lines from places with laxer laws. Surely having tighter restrictions across the board would thus reduce the number of weapons in the hands of gangs. I don't want to hear the hand-wave answer of "oh but criminals will always get and use guns" either, because while it's true that some criminals absolutely would still manage, there would still be a reduction. Not to mention the lack market is expensive because supply and demand is a thing.

    You can say that it's because of having such a large and diverse population. That argument actually doesn't look half bad at first... until you start breaking things down more. Australia, the UK, Canada and, hell, technically even the EU countries all have ethnically diverse populations too. You can say it's because they have smaller populations, but a lot of them have similar population density (obviously not Australia but I'm getting to that). Then there's also the fact that this assumption that population = more gun crime breaks down entirely if you start looking at individual cities. NYC is the largest city with the biggest and most diverse population in the Western hemisphere, but it's got less gun crime than St. Louis, New Orleans, Detroit, Baltimore and a bucketload of other places and coincidentally better gun control than almost everywhere it beats. Internationally, Sydney and Melbourne all have considerably higher populations than every US city bar NYC, less gun crime and also better gun control. Tokyo has a larger population and population density by far compared to US cities, but less gun crime and also coincidentally better gun control.

    Because of how prevalent your gun culture is? I can agree that if anything this would be the biggest factor but, let's be realistic for a moment. Nobody is going to start a civil war over gun control. I don't even think people would go to that length for an actual ban and that's not what we're talking about here - at the very least nobody in their right mind is. The simple fact is that anyone who even tried to rise up against the government for enacting gun control would not only be a very good example of the kind of people who shouldn't have guns to begin with but would just flat out lose. A handful of crazy people might actually be stupid enough to try but there wouldn't be any movement catching on.

    I'm not trying to change minds here anymore, I have well and truly given up on that. What I want right now is to at the very least try to understand why, despite all of this, you on the the pro-gun side believe that having better gun control would not work in the US.

    Or is it not about whether it would work or not? Is it a question of the personal freedom of being able to carry a weapon outweighing the societal affects of easy access to weaponry? Or a question of fear of the government potentially altering the constitutional amendments (nevermind that they're called amendments for a reason) outweighing the positives?

    I just want to understand why.

    - gimmepie from Pokecommunity forums
     
    WishIhadaManafi5 and AgentKallus like this.

Share This Page