• We're currently experiencing a minor issue with our email system preventing emails for new registrations and verifications going out. We're currently working to fix this
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

American Gun Control

Achantion

Ice Type Enthousiastic
I've long since realised I'm probably never going to make anyone pro-gun see sense.
I know this feeling all to well. I've lived my entire life in a country were barely anyone has a gun, and everything is fine, I can't see a single reason why anyone should ever need to own a gun (especially if nobody has them), I gave up on most of these discussions a long time ago, I'm convinced it is a cultural thing, driven by fear-mongering.

We as a human are inherently to emotional to for such things.
 

BronzeHeart92

Active Member
I know this feeling all to well. I've lived my entire life in a country were barely anyone has a gun, and everything is fine, I can't see a single reason why anyone should ever need to own a gun (especially if nobody has them), I gave up on most of these discussions a long time ago, I'm convinced it is a cultural thing, driven by fear-mongering.

We as a human are inherently to emotional to for such things.
True. Whatever 'boogeymen' these pro-gun people fear above all else, they likely only exist inside their heads...
 

WishIhadaManafi5

To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before.
Staff member
Moderator
I know this feeling all to well. I've lived my entire life in a country were barely anyone has a gun, and everything is fine, I can't see a single reason why anyone should ever need to own a gun (especially if nobody has them), I gave up on most of these discussions a long time ago, I'm convinced it is a cultural thing, driven by fear-mongering.

We as a human are inherently to emotional to for such things.
Yep. That said, I'm not against people having guns to go hunting with. My uncle had them to use for deer hunting. But at least he believed in some kind of gun control and not having military grade weapons and tons of ammunition.
 

D*N

Musical Star
This debate is always so weird to me as someone from Europe. I don't even know why you would like other people to have a gun at any time. I don't even trust myself with a gun, let alone other people.
 

SBaby

Dungeon Master
There is historical precedent for governments turning against their own people, often violently.
This is happening right now, and will likely continue to happen until the end of the world.

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.
Socialism is great, until the government runs out of other peoples' money.

True. Whatever 'boogeymen' these pro-gun people fear above all else, they likely only exist inside their heads...
The government is what people fear. And nowadays, it's easier and easier to see why.

But the thing is, it doesn't matter if guns exist or not. People who want to kill will find a way to do it with or without guns (there'll just be more IEDs or stabbings). The crusades are considered the bloodiest war in human history, and I don't think anyone had ARs during those wars.

But hey, people also kill other people with vehicles. Maybe we should outlaw those too. And the Internet has caused kids to commit suicide. Maybe that should be outlawed too. Anything can be a gun. Firearms are just a red herring.

Not to mention, let's pretend for a second you're somehow able to get firearms outlawed (which would require Republicans and Democrats to work together, and good luck with that). What do you think would happen? The cartels will see that and instead of smuggling in drugs, they'll smuggle in firearms. You can't get rid of firearms any more than you could stop every person in the world from committing a crime for a week.

And before you ask, I don't own any firearms. Too loud.
 
Last edited:

Auraninja

Try to understand.
Socialism is great, until the government runs out of other peoples' money.
Should we have a system where the government takes more of the money for themselves, then?


But the thing is, it doesn't matter if guns exist or not. People who want to kill will find a way to do it with or without guns (there'll just be more IEDs or stabbings). The crusades are considered the bloodiest war in human history, and I don't think anyone had ARs during those wars.
I'm sure crusaders also didn't have nuclear weapons or missiles, but that shouldn't take out any emphasis on how dangerous those are.

But hey, people also kill other people with vehicles. Maybe we should outlaw those too. And the Internet has caused kids to commit suicide. Maybe that should be outlawed too. Anything can be a gun. Firearms are just a red herring.
Vehicles are for transportation. The Internet is for information gathering and socialization. What is a firearm designed to do?

And before I go further; let me say that I'm not opposed to all fire arms, but I don't think an automatic rifle should be in the hands of the public.
I don't see the problem with controlling the arms.

Not to mention, let's pretend for a second you're somehow able to get firearms outlawed (which would require Republicans and Democrats to work together, and good luck with that). What do you think would happen? The cartels will see that and instead of smuggling in drugs, they'll smuggle in firearms. You can't get rid of firearms any more than you could stop every person in the world from committing a crime for a week.
As opposed to now where it is legal to purchase a fire arm, and you don't have to even be mentally competent to own one.

Also, look up mass shootings in each first world country.
 

bobjr

EVERYONE WANTS THE BIG CHAIR MEG
Staff member
Moderator
I never got the "Socialism takes all your money" when in our increasingly capitalistic society the wealth gap is rising more and more and currently the average American can't even get 1000 dollars in emergency money.

Either way the problem is we've seen local solutions fail because no matter what it has to be a strong national push. If one state does a lot of work and the other does nothing then yeah state borders are hardly watched, which is the real problem with places like Chicago, when Indiana is right there.
 

SBaby

Dungeon Master
Should we have a system where the government takes more of the money for themselves, then?
That's what Socialism is. Once they run out of other peoples' money, then you have a third world country.

As opposed to now where it is legal to purchase a fire arm, and you don't have to even be mentally competent to own one.

Also, look up mass shootings in each first world country.
Who do you think would illegally buy firearms if they get outright outlawed? Not law abiding citizens. It's going to be people that have the intent to use them on someone else.

As I've said before, the only way systems like these work is if everyone in the nation agrees to never commit a crime again.
 

Auraninja

Try to understand.
That's what Socialism is. Once they run out of other peoples' money, then you have a third world country.
When the Republican controlled Senate took out people's healthcare, they celebrated. Why did they celebrate? It was because of the tax breaks they would get.
Capitalism, if not checked, can lead to greed and selfishness, and that just means that corporations and politicians who support them get more money.

Who do you think would illegally buy firearms if they get outright outlawed? Not law abiding citizens. It's going to be people that have the intent to use them on someone else.

As I've said before, the only way systems like these work is if everyone in the nation agrees to never commit a crime again.
If our society is not even trying to forbid crazy people from owning guns, then we are asking to have major problems.

Let's say that a person who is crazy brings a gun to a place that allows it. He isn't breaking the law until he or she fires.
You see, if you can make it illegal for him to own the gun in the first place, then you can make preventative measures.

But let's not get too theoretical, let's look at Japan.

While Japan is far from perfect, they create extensive tests to see if you are competent enough to own a gun.
Japan has its fair share of problems, but they hardly have any gun deaths.
 
Last edited:

SBaby

Dungeon Master
But let's not get too theoretical, let's look at Japan.

While Japan is far from perfect, they create extensive tests to see if you are competent enough to own a gun.
Japan has its fair share of problems, but they hardly have any gun deaths.
True, but Japan also has a society where people have way more respect for authority than the US does. In the US, we have groups of people that literally want to wage wars against law enforcement. How can we possibly expect crime to stop with attitudes like that? If you take guns off the street, you also have to take crime off the street. And the only way to do that is to change the culture.
 

bobjr

EVERYONE WANTS THE BIG CHAIR MEG
Staff member
Moderator
You’re right law enforcement does need a huge culture change.

(Also the huge white supremacy problem that ties heavily into law enforcement)
 

FullFathomsFive

Well-Known Member
True, but Japan also has a society where people have way more respect for authority than the US does. In the US, we have groups of people that literally want to wage wars against law enforcement. How can we possibly expect crime to stop with attitudes like that? If you take guns off the street, you also have to take crime off the street. And the only way to do that is to change the culture.
I'm literally a paid-up Conservative, and I think you'd have to turn a deliberate blind eye to not see something desperately wrong with US policing attitudes, or at the very least what officers are being taught. There are far too many videos out there of terrified officers gunning down innocent people, and even if there's wider reciprocal problems the onus is absolutely on the police to be the most responsible and proportionate party in any interaction.
 

TheWanderingMist

Kanae, Keeper of the Gates Emblazoned
I'm all for better background checks, but if you think banning guns is going to solve anything, you're incorrect. Both the Walmart in El Paso and the bar in Dayton were gun-free zones. If we use the outright banning side's own logic, they should be against anyone owning knives after the attack that left 4 dead and 2 or more wounded in California.

Everyone screams about mass shootings, but that's only because they get media attention, and even then, it's only when it happens during daylight. Gang shootings rarely get media attention outside of their local cities. If I'm remembering correctly, 67% of all gun deaths in the US are suicides. The odds of you being shot in a mass shooting vs the odds of you committing suicide are essentially the same as the odds of you dying in a plane crash vs the odds of you dying in a car crash. One is scarier than the other, but far less likely to happen.

And as @SBaby said, if you outlaw firearms, which are far more valuable than most drugs, the gangs and the cartels will start mass-producing them, and they'll hand them out to anybody who wants them.

As for the "military-grade" and "tons of ammunition" being illegal argument, shooters will just start working around them by carrying multiple guns so they can drop one as soon as it runs out of bullets and start shooting again without even having to reload.

I don't own a gun at the moment, but I have considered getting one for self-defense.
 

bobjr

EVERYONE WANTS THE BIG CHAIR MEG
Staff member
Moderator
Gun bans don’t work if you only do one area, it has to be nationwide. One state can put in strict gun laws, but that doesn’t matter if a state an hour away has none.

Also carrying a gun for see defense increases your odds of being shot.
 

FullFathomsFive

Well-Known Member
If we use the outright banning side's own logic, they should be against anyone owning knives after the attack that left 4 dead and 2 or more wounded in California.
There's a severe difference in lethality between guns and knives, and knives have many more legitimate purposes.

Everyone screams about mass shootings, but that's only because they get media attention, and even then, it's only when it happens during daylight. Gang shootings rarely get media attention outside of their local cities. If I'm remembering correctly, 67% of all gun deaths in the US are suicides.
I don't see the point of the comparison here. Gun massacres are infrequent, but the issue is that they happen at all!

International comparisons suggest the ease of access and sheer saturation of guns is almost certainly the root cause of the US's borderline unique problem. My only hesitation over new laws that would eventually escalate to a full ban would be the nightmare of implementation.
 
Top