Thoughts on Gun Control

A brief note from a criminal perspective, something sorely lacking in these discussions, usually.

While I've never owned a gun, I've certainly had the chance. There are three ways I could get a gun. 1) I steal it. Guns are everywhere. If you think you need one, break into empty houses until you find one. It won't take long. This is where the majority of illegal guns come from. 2) I buy it illegally. Legal gun owners hit financial trouble like anyone else, and you can get a LOT more for a gun from a hood rat then from a store. This is also quite common, especially in former soldiers who just got out and have been waiting a while to do hard drugs. 3) I buy it legally. Not an option for me personally.

All three of these routes mean the gun passes through a legal gun owner's hands. This whole... 'only outlaws will have guns' thing is catchy, and it would be true for about twenty years, but guns don't come across the border, shoved under car seats. In fact, that's how guns leave our country, and afflict our neighbors. Outlaws get their guns from gun stores, just a few links removed from the first owner.

Personally, I think all gun ownership should be completely banned. The idea that we could use even the firearms currently legal to own against any military, as postulated in the second amendment, is laughable. Even with a fully automatic assault weapons, any trained military force will decimate resistance. The idea that guns are useful in self defense is laughable too, as one of the single riskiest things you can do to yourself and your family is introduce a gun into the house. Logically, the best way to defend yourself is to keep it far away.

Did you know that there was a school massacre in China the same day as the Newton shooting? 30-odd casualties as I recall, mostly children.

AND NO FUCKING FATALITIES, BECAUSE KNIVES DON'T KILL PEOPLE. Yes, the mentally ill are everywhere, but this man could not get a gun, no matter what, and as a result, thirty families kept their kids. British crime stats also bear this out - Many factors affect crime, but the mere presence of guns, on either side of the incident, dramatically spikes deaths from crime.

Actually more people are killed by knives and other household items than guns.

Heh, I didn't think this thread would be re-found after the long pause.

At any rate, the input is highly appreciated.

Rooster, I believe actually it was the same incident you mentioned that me and Veinexes saw on "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart at one point in time. I'm pretty damn sure ... just because it wound up leading comparing America to Australia and trying to analyze why we don't have gun control but other nations can better accept the policy.

And I admit ... I'm slightly curious myself on that.

But after re-reading and re-glancing at all the replies ... I think I'm seeing that yeah, background checks should be a more immediate solution as opposed to complete gun control. Because while I've never had to worry about needing one myself [thank gods], I can understand that not everyone has that luxury or fortune. Some people live in far worse areas, to the point where even a bit of reassurance would probably be nice.

Fair. But I still think some people should be screened, especially if they're not at all sane. Well ... no. Sanity doesn't necessarily matter. But really, screen people for the love of all that's holy or not. There really just are some people who shouldn't have access to firearms.

But we [America] seem too hellbent to even consider that much. It's really infuriating, sometimes. And it's worse when we refuse to do what's best for our citizens, everyone and everything as a whole.

For the moment, that's my main rant --- on gun control anyways. I'm going to leave the one on hating my sleep schedule in my head.

Small smile, weary sigh

But at any rate, thanks all who have gotten back to this thread.

-LadyYunaFFX2

Yuna, What disturbs me the most about guns in America is how easy it is to buy one and how quick the process is, I think a little more checking and waiting would make a big difference.

Yeah, yeah it really is.

And it fucking irritates me. There are times when weapons have obviously been needed -- like during our Revolutionary War. It's one of the few eras where I don't view it as mindless bloodshed. No, we fought for a purpose, an actual desire to be free.

But as of late ... I can't help but feel as if quite a big number of people who even own guns are just .... hm. I wouldn't quite say are paranoid though maybe close to it. More or less though it's just having the damn things to actually do so and tending to lead to abusing the system, as it were. Especially because ... well, like you said. It really is too easy to get the damn things.

I've never owned one myself but I have shot a few during hunting with my dad or at a summer camp where they let us try using a .22 rifle. Now that I think back on that ... I dunno why they let us. I was in 6th grade back then. Sure I trust myself ... but wow. That could have gone badly.

Makes me more grateful it didn't ... eesh.

Yeah though ... screenings. I agree, they definitely need to be done or some sort of checking and waiting process as you hinted, Rooster.

Knives have a tool function. My house has over 50 knives in it, probably more. My point was that a stab wound is survivable, a gunshot dramatically less so.

You are kidding right? It all depends on the wound and where it is! A knife can be a far more effective weapon at times and far more lethal but once again it comes down to certain factors. But they don't ban knives.

They don't ban swords either, but then, I can't kill you from 40 yards with a knife or sword. Now, don't get me wrong Rooster, I don't actually disagree with you Rooster. I've spent more than a little bit of time training with archaic weaponry, and I've had the unfortunate moment of having to make use of it on a real person in something besides training. I didn't kill anyone. But it wouldn't have been hard.

With a knife or a sword, you have every chance of killing a person, but you usually at least have to have some kind of idea of what you're doing. A gun is just point and click, and a person goes from perfectly healthy to perfectly wounded in under a second.

The incident in China of 30 wounded and no one dying I hold as nothing short of a fucking miracle. 30 wounded, the person doing the attacks must have been in something of a maddened frenzy, since it takes very little time to add an extra stab or two to make it a fatal wound. So I'll count those people as extremely lucky.

So yes, Guns should have something of a better control on them, through background checks, even just more education on the safe use of them to help reduce accidents. Hell, growing up I knew how ot operate a .22 rifle when I was 6 years old. The gun was in plain site, over one of the doors in the house. If I'd stood on a chair, I could have grabbed it. I never did though. I understood what it was, what it was for, and none of those things were my own amusement. Guns are tools too, especially for those of us who lived in Farm country. There are some animals out there that need a firmer solution than throwing a rock at.

All I am saying is the problem isn't so much that guns exist or are available it is more what makes people snap the way they do to want to kill dozens of people that they don't even know? Because in my opinion that is the real problem and even if you waved a magic wand and eliminated every gun from existence you would still have people making home made bombs or using something else to achieve their massacres.

So yes, make guns harder to obtain, I am all for that, restrict military assault rifles etc, yes I am for that too, but don't think that guns make people want to stage these massacres, there is something else deeply wrong and until you work out what that is, massacres or for that matter violence done with some kind of weapon or even a fist will always happen.

Alvis Alendran said:

Hell, growing up I knew how ot operate a .22 rifle when I was 6 years old. The gun was in plain site, over one of the doors in the house. If I'd stood on a chair, I could have grabbed it. I never did though. I understood what it was, what it was for, and none of those things were my own amusement.

Click to expand...

Now take a kid in the same situation, with the same training, and add a dash of mental instability, temper, and adolescent social pressure. Run this same experiment 50 million times nationwide, with varying degrees of those three factors.

(Reading that again, it's something of an unfair point, especially with where I go next. But I hope it expresses a bit of how I view guns. It's not about the responsible, sane people. Sometimes, you just can't tell the difference - Like with teenagers.)

Re: Guns being tools in farm country, this I understand and agree with. Even in my ideal of all guns banned, I likely would leave provisions for bolt action .22 rifles and 20 gauge breech shotguns.

Then again, it's not like a good bow with a bear tip can't do more damage, at that point.

We live in an age that we understand things a lot more readily, and mental illnesses that would have normally gotten peopel stoned and/or killed and/or exiled are now attempted to be treated. Usually. With mixed results. And don't get me wrong, that's a good thing. The treating them part.

But most places are not exactly drowning in people who are trained to deal with these kind of mental illnesses, so a lot of people fall to the wayside for lack of a person to work with. Or in the case of some places (mostly the US, but other countries I'm sure have the issue as well) it's a matter of not having the money to go to theraapy.

So when the stressors kick in fully, there's no safety net, no one to call that might know what to do so...they try to solve whatever problem they have with a round of violence.

I don't have a magic solution, or even a good one. Frankly, I'm all ears if someone has a suggestion on what they might be able to do to try and correct the issue.

A solution? Perhaps about 200 more years of medical science.

Until then, the best solution to me seems to be minimizing damage. Sometimes, that means incarceration. I've been through and through the mental health system, and some people just need to be put in a box until they die. Sometimes, rehabilitation is possible, and it takes over more of those dangerous ones all the time.

The problem here is emergent symptoms. We can't reliably screen kids for these things, and misdiagnosis could ruin an otherwise normal psyche. Every mentally ill person breaks at some point, sometimes more than once, sometimes frequently of varying severity. So, yes, don't let them buy guns... But does it matter, if their family/friends/dude across the street with an NRA sticker on his car all have weapons? Even if you have a locker, do you keep the key with you? Or is it in the front entryway table's drawer, even marked 'GUNS' for the consideration of a young thief who's been hearing voices for about a year?

A bit of a personal anecdote there...

The only solution I see is remove the single most dangerous tool any human alive could reasonably expect to get their hands on - Guns. Is it unfair to responsible gun owners? You betcha. Consider whether the overall good of other humans weighs more than 'culture', 'not my problem', 'constitutional rights', or any of those other chirping distractions.

The bottom line is clear to me: Guns kill. If you don't have an emergent need to kill something, you don't need a gun. Ever. Under any circumstances, even to defend yourself, because THAT'S STILL KILLING SOMEONE and no wallet or possession or 'castle' is worth doing that.

Let's keep in mind that being robbed on a personal level in the street or having your house broken into is a violation of your basic human rights, not to mention that the robbery or break in also can result in the criminal also assaulting/raping/killing their victim.

The psychological effect these crimes have on the victim last a life time, victims struggle with feelings of powerlessness, depression and anxiety among other things, I really couldn't care less about the criminals who engage in them who quite often are given more rights by our weak governments and Libertarians.

Given the criminal is most likely armed in some way and is even working in team with someone else and is obviously prepared for the crime he is committing this leaves the victim usually at a disadvantage. I believe we all have the right to defend ourselves, with lethal force if required, don't want to be shot? Don't rob or assault someone.

It's easy to say that killing someone to defend yourself isn't worth it, that it is killing wah wah wah, but what does that mean exactly? Does it mean you are supposed to stand idly by letting them rob and assault you or your family, is it better to let them kill you or a loved one than shoot them?

NO. That is just Libertarian hypocrisy, FEELING SAFE IS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. If a gun achieves that than so be it, if the bad guy gets killed than so what, they shouldn't have been committing the crime in the first place.

Never forget the criminal chooses to rob or assault you, you don't get that same right to decide, all you can do in the end is lay down and die or fight back.

littlerooster said:

That is just Libertarian hypocrisy,

Click to expand...

Please don't get this thread closed too.

Trygon said:

littlerooster said:

That is just Libertarian hypocrisy,

Click to expand...

Please don't get this thread closed too.

Click to expand...

Actually I will report it as you are once again resorting to insults and attacks as you did in the patronizing Muslims thread. Which is actually why that thread was closed down, the insults and lies hurled by people like yourself.

Okay, okay ....

Goes into referee mode as makes a 'T' for a time-out signal

Hold up, please.

Yeah, I realize I made a sensitive thread. But please, stick to the main topic .. which is your thoughts and views on it. Not saying one is wrong about them. If you two wanna continue this, do so in PMs. But yeah, not here please?

LadyYunaFFX2 said:

Okay, okay ....

Goes into referee mode as makes a 'T' for a time-out signal

Hold up, please.

Yeah, I realize I made a sensitive thread. But please, stick to the main topic .. which is your thoughts and views on it. Not saying one is wrong about them. If you two wanna continue this, do so in PMs. But yeah, not here please?

Click to expand...

Simply sick and tired of Trygon resorting to personal attacks and lies every time he hears something he doesn't like or is capable of discussing. He did this in the Muslim thread as well, I feel he just enjoys Trolling.

Not interested in conversing with him via PM or in threads and I have reported his posts.

...

No, but seriously, I was trying to prevent that sort of response. What is with you? Nevermind. Really don't care to explore your damage any further. As you were, everyone.

Okay, I kinda feel as though I'm stepping into the middle of a bar fight, but I'm going to do it anyway.

Rooster, you've made some very good contributions in the past to the Academy, your posts are normally well constructed and thought provoking to read.

Trygon, most of what you write comes off as aggressive and on occassion, condescending. But that is much more of just how you write, adn not a deliberate attempt to provoke someone.

I will also state that I really disagree with a lot of what Trygon purports in his view points on this thread. But that's fine, he's made some good points, and has structured the aggressively and well.

His statement on asking you to not get the thread closed could be seen as a bit...odd, but really, it's hardly an attack of any kind from what I can see. Filing statements into political categories is a rather dismissive approach, and I note as of late Rooster, your well thought out and presented posts seem to be...a little more full of bile and self-righteousness.

One of the rules of the Academy is to Have a Thick Skin. I see nothing wrong in any of Trygon's posts in this thread. So...good sir, I ask that you take a step back, a few deep breaths, or whatever you would find helpful to ket off some of this anger.

So dispite disagreeing with his viewpoint, I'm agreeing far more with Trygon's approach to this discussion.

Offers chill pills or something to help out

Really ... Alvis is right with one thing.

You both do have points, all valid. And honestly, that's what I made this for, not to cause an argument.

Like I admitted (or thought I did), this may have been a bad topic to choose. But at the time I made this ... it was when the US began to seriously try to debate whether to make it official or not. So I was curious on the viewpoints of people who aren't officially in the Senate/House of Representatives or anything of the like.

And all in all, I am rather pleased with hearing the input. But please, let's keep it as just opinions, hm?

In the end, there's no actual right or wrong answer; well not in a technical sense. Maybe to our beliefs, sure. But let's at least be polite on the matters at hand.

Thick skin is one thing, being slandered and insulted is an entirely different again, in the end it shows a lack of maturity and ability to accept that others have a different opinion.

Now, back on topic, the beautiful thing about a middle of the road gun ownership policy is that if you choose not to own a gun for self defence or any other reason than you do not have to and if you are robbed and find yourself defenceless than that is the price you pay.

For those who wish to have some element of self defence than I feel that is a basic human right they should not be denied.

We can carry on about not wanting to kill and that guns shouldn't exist as much as we want, but we just don't live in that type of world do we.

Handguns for self defense and rifles for hunting in season are one thing, but civilians owning assault rifles is another thing.

I personally own a handgun, but it is entirely for self defense and I've only ever taken it out to the range. I don't own any hunting rifles because I don't hunt. People who own a shit ton of guns don't make any sense to me. You only need one to defend yourself.

I don't support any form of gun restriction, control, or whatever you want to call it. I also don't support background checks, and I do not support restricting criminals from owning guns or arms at all. Whatever is good for the goose, is always good for the gander.

'sides, if I'm not to trust anyone, it's the men and women that have made careers out of lying and pedantic appeasement.

Lysander Spooner -

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a protector, and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to protect those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do.

He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful sovereign, on account of the protection he affords you. He does not keep protecting you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

Click to expand...

Cydra...I'm not going to lie. It kinda sounds a lot like your opinions here has very little to do with gun guntrol, and more to do with you haveing a pretty heavy hate on for the government. Like you would oppose governemtn programs on principle, just because they are government programs.

Alvis Alendran said:

Cydra...I'm not going to lie. It kinda sounds a lot like your opinions here has very little to do with gun guntrol, and more to do with you haveing a pretty heavy hate on for the government. Like you would oppose governemtn programs on principle, just because they are government programs.

Click to expand...

If one day a government were to exist peacefully, I would not oppose it. But as with all other initiators of violence, I oppose government no less.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not some pacifist; I'm a libertarian that deplores pacifism itself just as much as I do the initiation of violence. I am a subscriber of the Non-Aggression Pact.

But however should the argument be that government must exist, then all minorities must be respected and protected from the means of the majority - including the smallest minority of all: the individual. To do this, it is only proper that as Rome discovered a long time ago and Switzerland has been doing for decades, to train all citizens and require all citizens to carry arms regardless of any other status.