I've had it with guns

[chspeed]

I'll start this with a statement that I am by no means a liberal or democrat. I consider myself moderate, and independent on both social and fiscal issues. I realize the world is a complicated place, and that there are no easy answers to most questions that stump our society.

That said, the gun laws in this country are absolutely, unquestionably, ridiculously, inconsistent with common sense.

The constitutional argument is laughable. Three hundred years ago, while fighting for it's existence, our nascent federal government had no money and very little taxation authority. It relied on "well regulated" state-run militias, and any weapons they could bring. There is no sensible argument to support this today.

The hunting argument is ridiculous. Who needs an AK-47 to hunt?

The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is most likely statistically incorrect. In countries with stricter gun laws, fewer people die from violent crime.

I believe that every concerned individual in this country, even the pro-gun lobby, in their hearts know that we need to change our laws. That we cannot go on this way.

If you're against any more regulation, please, take a minute to ask yourself: "What if it was my kid? My wife? My husband?"

 

[Chris E]

So, what do you suggest in terms of laws, to get rid of all of the guns already out in society? Just passing laws going forward won't resolve that.

 

[Lihu]

The caveat with more strict gun laws is that more criminals will own guns and the balance will tilt towards more heavily armed criminals.

It's not a simple answer because the USA is such a large country and there are many sources for any kind of weapon.

[Chris E]

Yes, but you could say that about any country with strict gun laws....only criminals will own guns. Yet, the statistics show that countries with strict gun laws have much lower homicide by gun. So, it is reasonable to conclude that if it is harder to get guns, then less people will get shot. This is logical, if you are basically starting from square one inre to the amount of guns already in that society. 

My question was based upon the fact that the barn door is already open. So, unless mass confiscation takes place and draconian imprisonment takes place for not adhering to that confiscation, then the problem will still exist. So, how do you deal with that?

[Lihu]

Agree that in general there would be less deaths due to guns, but mass shootings could actually be even worse.

[chspeed]

8 minutes ago, Chris E said:

So, what do you suggest in terms of laws, to get rid of all of the guns already out in society? Just passing laws going forward won't resolve that.

 

There are plenty of great suggestions in Congress already that do everything from increasing the difficulty of getting guns, limiting the type of guns, etc. The point is that the laws, as they exist today, are in complete contrast with what I know just about all of us feel is what we want this country to be about.

[Gunther]

Oh my Lord.  Yes, we get it:  peace on earth, goodwill towards men.  We ALL want that but that is not how the world works.  Add "...under attack?" to each of your closing questions and you will understand why law-abiding citizens must be armed.

No guns in France.  

[chspeed]

11 minutes ago, Chris E said:

So, what do you suggest in terms of laws, to get rid of all of the guns already out in society? Just passing laws going forward won't resolve that.

 

Even if it take twenty years, why not invest in new laws now so that our kids, or children's children, can benefit?

[saevel25]

5 minutes ago, chspeed said:

The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is most likely statistically incorrect. In countries with stricter gun laws, fewer people die from violent crime.

That's not true. Though US does have a higher gun related death rate. That rate isn't as correlated to gun ownership as other countries. Meaning for as many guns as we own in the US, we have an extremely low gun death rate. We own magnitudes more guns, yet there isn't a proportionally higher gun death rate. 

Also, there are European countries that have higher Violent Crime rates than the US. It's just they use other weapons. Lets look at Britain and Wales. Their violent crime rate is 898 per 100,000 people. The US is 387 per 100,000 people. We are 2.32 x less likely to be victims of violent crime than in Britain and Wales. What type of weapon is used in Britain and Wales? 31% use Knives, 23% use a bludgeoning weapon, 14% use a bottle, 5% use firearms, 22% use other. Overall 80% of the time no weapon was used. 

Just saying, the people in Britain and Wales are more violent than we are. They just use other, or no weapons at all. Your statement that stricter gun laws mean fewer violent crimes is a false statement. It would just means the criminals would either find illegal guns or other means to do their violent crimes. 
 

13 minutes ago, chspeed said:

If you're against any more regulation, please, take a minute to ask yourself: "What if it was my kid? My wife? My husband?"

I also got to ask, what if I needed to protect my loved ones and I wasn't adequately armed. Do I bring a kitchen knife to a gunfight? 

It's not as simple as you make it seem. 

[chspeed]

10 minutes ago, Lihu said:

The caveat with more strict gun laws is that more criminals will own guns and the balance will tilt towards more heavily armed criminals.

It's not a simple answer because the USA is such a large country and there are many sources for any kind of weapon.

How do you know? Do you really, in your heart, believe that if we had stricter laws that more criminals will own guns?

Just now, saevel25 said:

It's not as simple as you make it seem. 
 

 

I don't think it's simple at all. I just believe that after we all see what's going on this country, most of us are desperate enough to try to change things.

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, chspeed said:

The hunting argument is ridiculous. Who needs an AK-47 to hunt?

Points like this undermine how seriously anyone can take the rest of your post.

16 minutes ago, chspeed said:

The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is most likely statistically incorrect.

Uhhhh? Huh?

16 minutes ago, chspeed said:

If you're against any more regulation, please, take a minute to ask yourself: "What if it was my kid? My wife? My husband?"

Ah, yes, let's always appeal to the emotional.

 

 

[Chris E]

Really? I never used an AK-47 for hunting. So what do you need an AK-47 for? 

[chspeed]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

Points like this undermine how seriously anyone can take the rest of your post

I'm sorry you feel that way, hopefully others don't. In my opinion, the current laws allow for guns that are inappropriate for hunting.

11 minutes ago, iacas said:

Uhhhh? Huh?

The word "argument" is missing from my post. Countries with stricter gun laws have fewer gun-related crimes. If that seems stupidly simple, it is.

 

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

Ah, yes, let's always appeal to the emotional.

What's wrong with that?

[kpaulhus]

I hunt with this... It's easier to shoot wild boar when you have more rounds. I keep the handgun on my hip 75% of the time. Hope I never have to use it. And ya, I have my concealed permit. 

[jbishop15]

10 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

That's not true. Though US does have a higher gun related death rate. That rate isn't as correlated to gun ownership as other countries. Meaning for as many guns as we own in the US, we have an extremely low gun death rate. We own magnitudes more guns, yet there isn't a proportionally higher gun death rate. 

Also, there are European countries that have higher Violent Crime rates than the US. It's just they use other weapons. Lets look at Britain and Wales. Their violent crime rate is 898 per 100,000 people. The US is 387 per 100,000 people. We are 2.32 x less likely to be victims of violent crime than in Britain and Wales. What type of weapon is used in Britain and Wales? 31% use Knives, 23% use a bludgeoning weapon, 14% use a bottle, 5% use firearms, 22% use other. Overall 80% of the time no weapon was used. 

Just saying, the people in Britain and Wales are more violent than we are. They just use other, or no weapons at all. Your statement that stricter gun laws mean fewer violent crimes is a false statement. It would just means the criminals would either find illegal guns or other means to do their violent crimes. 
 

I also got to ask, what if I needed to protect my loved ones and I wasn't adequately armed. Do I bring a kitchen knife to a gunfight? 

It's not as simple as you make it seem. 

In 2010 the UK had a gun death rate of .26 per 100,000 [here]; in the US in 2013, we had a gun death rate of 10.5 per 100,000. [here]

The US has less than 5% of the world's population, and accounts for 31% of it's mass shootings. [here]

 

[iacas]

Just now, chspeed said:

I'm sorry you feel that way, hopefully others don't. In my opinion, the current laws allow for guns that are inappropriate for hunting.

People don't hunt with AK-47s. The AK-47 is a cheap, semi-auto or automatic weapon (automatic weapons have been illegal for a loooong time) that's not even very accurate.

Just now, chspeed said:

The word "argument" is missing from my post. Countries with stricter gun laws have fewer gun-related crimes. If that seems stupidly simple, it is.

See @saevel25's post above. But I see you've added "gun-related crimes."

Just now, chspeed said:

What's wrong with that?

It leads to rampant stupidity and the ignoring of facts. Like saying "think of the children!" and "do you need to hunt with an AK-47?"

Just now, jbishop15 said:

In 2010 the UK had a gun death rate of .26 per 100,000 [here]; in the US in 2013, we had a gun death rate of 10.5 per 100,000. [here]

He said violent crime, originally.

[chspeed]

20 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Just saying, the people in Britain and Wales are more violent than we are. They just use other, or no weapons at all. Your statement that stricter gun laws mean fewer violent crimes is a false statement. It would just means the criminals would either find illegal guns or other means to do their violent crimes. 

You may be correct. I should educate myself more on the numbers. Regardless, I find it implausible that a crime like the one today in California could be committed with a handgun. I know that most gun deaths are not with automatic weapons, but with handguns. I realize that outlawing bigger guns may have an effect on these media-friendly crimes and not on everyday crimes or accidents involving guns. But something has to change. We have to start somewhere.

Edited December 3, 2015 by chspeed

[rkim291968]

20 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

 Lets look at Britain and Wales. Their violent crime rate is 898 per 100,000 people. The US is 387 per 100,000 people. We are 2.32 x less likely to be victims of violent crime than in Britain and Wales. What type of weapon is used in Britain and Wales? 31% use Knives, 23% use a bludgeoning weapon, 14% use a bottle, 5% use firearms, 22% use other. Overall 80% of the time no weapon was used. 

UK's firearm related death per capita = 0.25 in 2010

US's firearm related death per capita = 10.5 in 2013

Yes, it's people who kill people.  But guns make it easier for people to kill.  Much easier.  Let's not forget accidental death by kids getting their hand on their parents guns.  Guns make it easier for suicide, too.

As for needing gun to protect their family members, I lived for 53 years now and never encountered an occasion that I would have to use a gun to protect loved ones.   However, I ran into many instances where I would have used a gun needlessly if I had one nearby.