Oregon College shooting

As someone from the UK, I can say that I've only seen guns twice in my whole life in person. The first being when my drunk neighbour claimed to the police that he was armed and would kill himself and everyone else that came near his house. The second being an old rifle passed down from many generations ago when my family owned a farm.

There's knives and other weapons used here in fights, but generally if you don't like the situation you can walk away before they can threaten you. To think that someone could just point a gun at you from a distance and there's nothing you can do is a rather scary thought.

If it worked in the UK the same laws would probably work in the US as time goes on and gun ownership slowly declines.

 

Nothing you could do (except defend yourself with your own gun, or flee)

 

"If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions."

 

Who is this quote from?

 

Gun control will never work. We have like 300M guns in this country. Banning new gun sales is one thing but banning already owned guns runs smack into the 4th and 5th amendments if not the 2nd. There is absolutely no way to ban guns in the US without changing the Constitution and severely undermining our civil liberties.

 

Stefan Molyneux, my bad.

 

- About 310M guns
- The idea isn't about banning guns, it is about regulating how guns are purchased
- Forcibly removing guns will not happen any-time-soon, there will be a civil war before something like that takes place
- Now, a gun buy back program would remove many guns from the market. Offer a gun buyback program, street value/good value for the gun, no questions asked, illegal gun, legal gun, whatever. Bring it in, get your cash, a significant amount of guns are off the public market
- Again you're using ban, a ban doesn't need to occur for some decent gun control measures to come into place
- Civil liberties are already completely undermined and not by proposed gun control, but by the likes of the NSA and FBI.
- 2nd amendment refers to national government, state governments could ban guns or instate very strict gun laws. These would likely get contested, but they could do it.

 

The second amendment has been incorporated to apply to the states as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

I don't support the NSA either. Just because the government already is doing bad shit I can't disagree with them doing more of the same.

I don't see how any proposed gun control measures other than a total ban would actually prevent mass shootings.

Gun buyback programs generally don't work at all. That might be because they don't pay enough for the guns but it is a thing that is already done and it doesn't seem to help.

Gun purchases are already very regulated. The ATF just doesn't have the funding to actually enforce all of the laws that are already on the books (blame the NRA for that one).

 

This. And even if someone were to write down on a piece of paper that they were allowed to take someone's guns or other property away from them, it doesn't actually justify the action.

This.

This, and not only would it not prevent violence, it makes it so only criminals can have guns, increasing crime.

This. If guns were the problem, then maybe gun buybacks would make any sort of sense at all.

This. In case you already didn't know, there are already a multitude of right-infringing laws in place pertaining to guns (and mass spying).

 

I've read through most of the posts and it seems many believe guns are the problem. Bottom line, if you want to kill people you will find a way. Yes, people snap do kill others with guns without thinking. However, people are killed by a wide variety of other things as well. Taking away guns doesn't take away killings.

Just because something is against the rules doesn't mean it wont happen. By taking guns away or greatly restricting them, black markets for these guns will increase. We can see this evident on this site. There wouldn't be Sythe.org if gold, account sales, and botting were "legal" and unrestricted. With black markets in control, it leaves two groups with power. The enforcers and criminals gain power while everyone else left behind. No matter what happens, if someone wants something, it will happen legally or illegally. Restricting guns will not keep guns out of the criminal's hand, just as drug laws doesn't keep crack out of addicts pipes.

I might sound insensitive, but shit happens. We do not live in a perfect world and we shouldn't expect everything to be perfect. I prefer a balance of safety and freedom rather than all safety and no freedom or vice versa.

 

I didn't bother to read all the posts in this thread, but here's something I don't get as a Canadian:

If so many people in the US own guns and carry them around for protection, how come I never hear of these mass shootings ending with another civilian using their personal fire arm to either kill/wound the shooter? I understand a lot of these instances happen in places where the people being assaulted aren't exactly of the gun carrying demographic (i.e. the people at Sandy Hook, college students) or happen in these supposed "gun free zones", but still. What's the point of everyone owning guns for protection if no one is apparently using them for their intended purpose?

 

Most people don't carry, just home defense. Open carry can cause issues and concealed carry requires extra classes.

Someone presenting a firearm which leads to deescalation doesn't make it into the news, both because its uninteresting and also because it doesn't fit the current agenda.

Obviously the most recent shooting was at a college campus. If you're caught with something you're instantly expelled.

 

Of course banning guns isn't going to stop people killing one another.. However, what it does do is revoke a tool that is capable of killing many people without interception.

For example; one extreme to another.

Person A has a mini-gun, person B has a spork.. Who would kill the most without being restrained?

Clearly option A, so let's remove guns and leave people with knives to plan their massacres with.

America should really adopt the same laws as the UK.

Straight-pull only or semi-auto .22, no handguns, FIA license to own a weapon with the proper safes in your house to safely keep weapons secure.

 

Out of the two, obviously the person with a gun, but what stops a person from creating a bomb? It took two seconds to find out how to make a bomb, and from the article it looks just as easy to make. http://gizmodo.com/5831942/how-the-hell-did-a-17-year-old-get-the-materials-to-make-bombs

No thanks, I prefer to have more freedom while sacrificing some safety. I don't need the government to baby sit me.


Here are some related graphs that you may find interesting.



Considering the amount of guns per 100 people, the homicide rate isn't that bad.



Even with the high amount of firepower in the U.S., it seems that both the U.S. and U.K. seem to feel just as safe out at night.





This graph doesn't do too much justice, but I do find it interesting.





Just because the U.K. has less murders involving firearms doesn't mean it has less crime. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000


I understand statistics can fallible and misrepresent information but that doesn't change my opinion. I would give up some safety to get some freedom if it came down to it. I don't want to live in a world that is 100% safe with 0% freedom. I'm not saying the U.K. is that way, but I prefer the freedom America has to the freedom the U.K. has.

 

It's a truley horrible problem and it even worse it gets as much publicity as it does.

 

You share some fair points.

I guess my argument is coming from someone who's never owned a fire-arm.

The argument for the bomb isn't really fair. Pretty much any person can create anything that exists, I could take a few blocks of steel and mill myself an AR15. That's the comparison for "creating" a bomb. However, would you find it alarming if you could walk in your local bomb shop and buy a couple of warheads? Perhaps they're good for home defence or target shooting. Where's the line?

It's not like the purpose of my argument is that the US sucks, and you can't live there because it's too scary to go out at night. ( the graphs you provided ). My argument is that as a society you must rationalise and create laws that protect people. Like a previous post I made, majority of people can go faster than the speed limit. However, they must abide the law and travel at the speed limits because of the small percentage of people that cannot drive faster.

There is no need for someone to own a weapon, it's something the person likes, so therefore they're defending it with pretty silly reasons to do so. And as I stated above, if you could buy bombs or other "tools" designed to kill/maim people you'd likely be alarmed. Weapons are built to kill people, they aid a person in doing so.

Eliminating weapons will directly stop mass shootings like this. Why wouldn't anyone consider it a fair sacrifice?

 

My point is that making something to kill a large amount of people is not that hard to do. Eliminating guns reduces shootings but it doesn’t reduce killings. Like the old proverb “Where there’s a will, there is a way.” If the Oregon Shooter, for example, didn’t have access to guns, I’m sure he would have figured out a different way to reach the same result.

I didn’t assume you felt that way towards the US. The graph was included to show that we, with the immense amount of guns, feel just as safe as you.

I also agree that as a society, laws must be created to protect the people. I believe that there is a healthy balance of safety and freedom. To gain one, you must sacrifice the other. In my personal opinion, I am content with our current balance and I do not wish to lose some freedom to become a little safer. I understand if you disagree, but that’s the beauty of having different nations. To each his own.

You disagree but I believe there is a need for someone to own a weapon.

According to American Police Beat, the average response time for an emergency call is 10 minutes. Atlanta has the worst response time with 11 to 12 minutes and Nashville comes in at a lightning speed of 9 minutes.

The average interaction time between criminal and victim is 90 seconds:
That translates to you being robbed/ injured/ maimed/ raped/ murdered and waiting for an additional 2 and a half minutes for the police to arrive. The truth of the matter is that the police will almost always arrive AFTER the crime has happened and the criminal has gone.

A gun could save your life in this type of situation and that is enough for me to believe there is a need for someone to own a weapon.

I partially agree. I believe it would reduce the amount of mass shootings, but I do not believe it would eliminate the mass shootings.

I’m sure you remember the Cumbria Shootings that recently took place. This occurred after your 1997 Firearms Acts, which banned private possession of handguns almost completely.

I don’t believe your Firearms Acts actually does anything, besides take away your rights. If you look at the U.K. list of massacres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Great_Britain), it indicates that modern U.K. hasn’t ever had a significant problem. There seems to be just as many killings are there were several hundred years ago.

You have to admit the Firearms Act doesn’t prevent mass shootings, let alone mass killings.


There are many ways to “skin a cat”. Eliminating guns limits just one method of killing, while countless others ways are still obtainable. I do, and always will see this as a way to take away our rights. I will not let fear control me and take away my freedom.

 

Disarming them is literally the opposite of protecting them. It leaves people defenseless.

Do you follow this line of reasoning with other things as well? "There is no need for someone to own a car! It is dangerous, look how many people are killed by cars every year! No one should ever be allowed to own a drivable death machine!"

Well, guns, like cars, are extremely useful modern tools that exponentially increase your defense ability, much like how cars are useful modern tools that exponentially increase your transportation ability. No one gets to decide for another person if they get to own a car, decide what kind of cars they are allowed to own, or anything else. Yet, somehow, people think they should be the ones to decide who gets guns and who doesn't?

No it won't. Overall violent crime & death INCREASED in places like the UK and Australia when they banned guns. Think about if planes were banned after 9/11 because they were deemed 'unsafe', and we would need to make that 'sacrifice' to protect everyones' 'freedom'. Now, almost 15 years later, thousands and thousands more deaths than the original attacks would have been caused by road travel as compared to air travel, resulting in a net negative impact. Sure, it would directly stop 'plane deaths', but at a heavier of lives on the other end.

 

There's really no way around it. The arument goes both ways. We will always have evil people, can't change that.

 

Again, some very good points. You're opening my eyes to other reasons which aren't quite as commonly put.

You're right, in the sense of if he wanted to achieve x amount of kills during his spree, he could just create some bombs and make his way there. However, at least when crafting some explosives, there's a good chance from the materials purchased to have a pro-active approach to detaining the person before they commit the act. The problem with guns in America particularly, is the purpose is un rendered, and you can literally be buying it to go to your local gun range, or to go to a school and kill kids.

I understand your point, the problem is the mass shootings. I do disagree when the result to such thinking on a particular issue kills kids whilst they're at school.

I think it's likely a rare occurrence when a person who requires police assistance, too requires an assault rifle. Do you genuinely believe the person robbing you deserves death as justice for their action on you? Or even assault? Raped/Murdered, fair enough.. However, how often is this?

I agree the gun could save your life. However, it will also take a life in doing so.

Very good point, I believe or lack thereof this type of offence caused our police unaware or untrained protocol/procedure to follow. However, you're right in what you're saying. And I too agree with the reducing opposed to eliminating. I sometimes get carried away.

I just fear it's too easy to get hold of a weapon and kill numerous people before even changing a magazine. Other methods would prove more difficult. So therefore reducing the overall collateral from an event.

However, if the people are disarmed they're still in a fair situation. Gun vs Gun or Fists vs Fists.

It appears your logic is "I need a gun to defend myself against a person with a gun".

No it would appear you follow this line of reasoning, as your reasoning is bad. A car is dangerous so all rules implemented for their use such as a driver's license, speed limits, vehicle services etc are mandatory as they're unsafe. However, a vehicle provides logistics, work further afield from your living location as well as general freedom and connection of people.

Whereas a Gun serves one purpose. To kill a person more easily that it's comparative tools.

Provide me some other uses of an assault rifle for any other reason to kill people, and reason it as I've reasoned the vehicle.

Oh you did, like a car a gun can connect people, take people to work, get people to the hospital quicker than the emergency response can get to you. Yeah, nice comparison.

What?

My argument is completely based on the ability to kill many people without being stopped. The ease in which you can purchase a weapon is far different from the difficulty of hijacking an aircraft.

So reply to this part only Xeiro;

Banning guns, would prevent people from massacring people in a school EASILY.