Poll: Arm the Victims or Take Away the Gun?

[Comrade Richard]

Now my question, how many revolutionary wars have American civilians participated in since then? You are honestly saying that, because some many many years ago, civilians fought in a war with soldiers, that at this point in time, with no wars being fought on American soil, they are still allowed to carry said guns?

That sounds absolutely ridiculous.

Still with a sense of history, it wasn't that long ago we fought the Civil War, either.

Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history. Something to think about...

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Part of me wanted to open with a personal insult like 'go fuck yourself' because you're simplifying the deaths of millions in countries just to add kindling to survivalist rhetoric about guns being absolutely necessary. The Founding Fathers never anticipated that civilians would have access to the kind of weaponry we do today, the military has enough fighting vehicles and unmanned killbots to mercilessly slaughter militants and civilians of foreign countries, and if the government ever went fascist the best your collection of firearms would do is get you and everything you hold dear brutally massacred because you thought you could be a one man army. I'm not for handing out guns or against guns being in public circulation because I'm hardcore cynical and believe that this issue will never be taken seriously because it would actually involved my countrymen being critical of America's holy scripture, which to most of us is the greatest blasphemy next to disliking the military and refusing to take part in our constant national narcissism of 'America is the greatest country on Earth, guys.'

It is my opinion that we need stricter gun regulations that require the destruction of all unregistered firearms and a national database of arms. It'd be too expensive to disarm everyone or give everyone a freaking gun but it's not hard to get a computer and write down 'Person A has X number of firearms that include B, C, and D.' Ideally I think there should be some kind of local firearms storage service - maybe attached to gun shops or operated separately. You can have your guns but you just need to be more responsible with them, which is apparently too much to ask.

Oh, and yes, I know I said I wouldn't but fuck you for using 56 million deaths to justify your hyper paranoid bullshit logic. You and people like you are the people ordinary folks are scared of, not the big bad government.

 

[invadergir]

Oh gosh dangit. I'm starting to see "mental health" as the new buzzword for the fox news viewing public. Crazies are the real problem so it must not be guns. Ok, so then what do you suggest we do with your theory?

You don't want restrictions on gun licensure such as mental-health screenings, and you don't want the public to have access to mental health since most of you oppose public health options.

So what the heck do you people want to do? Nothing...like always. Republicans are the party of no solutions.

 

[Whispering Cynic]

I pick the ban, if only because it takes away the weapons from otherwise honest citizens who would use the weapon in a crime of passion or suicide (the biggest killers by far), and creates a stumbling block for teenagers who plan massacres. Unlike professional criminals, middle-class school kids don't often have access to black markets, so without a convenient, legitimate method to get guns, I suspect a lot of massacres could be avoided.

Excuse me, what? Taking away weapons from honest citizens to avoid crimes of passion or suicides is a complete nonsense, because those will happen either way, only instead of a firearm a knife or a sledgehammer will be used. And at the same time you will disarm regular, responsible people who could use firearms to effectively defend themselves in a critical situation.
And are you suggesting that middle-class kids can legitimatelly obtain weapons on their own? That the current laws allow them to just go to a store and buy themselves a gun? Because I'm not convinced it is so.

Killing sprees are a symptom of societal problems in our current era, and cannot be entirely blamed on poor gun control. A revision, or an update to these laws may be in order in the USA, but complete ban of firearms will *not* solve your problems, it will only create new ones (see UK for an example).

 

[Th37thTrump3t]

Arm the victims because banning guns is no option. Banning guns is just another way of pacifying the population.

Indeed, which is a GOOD thing in my opinion. How many times have guns been used in a BAD way since the initial revolution? And then how many times have they been used in a "GOOD" way, by overthrowing the goverment? I don't see Europeans, Canadians and other western nations being suppresed or whatever because the population is not armed like a disorganized mob like in America.

Banning guns is not going to stop anything. Where do you think all of your gang members get their guns? Not anywhere legally I can assure you. If someone wants to commit mass murder, there are other alternatives to guns as well. A bomb is just as effective if not more. They are also easier to conceal. Also, there are roughly 270 million registered guns in the hands of civilians in the United States. That's enough guns to give one to eight out of every ten American citizens and still have some left over. How do you propose we go about getting rid of them without some nationally unified effort, which I would be willing to put money down that it would never happen? Guns are also used in a good way all the time, you just don't hear about it. How many times a day does someone prevent themselves from being mugged on the streets of New York City because they're packing? How many home invasions are stopped short because the homeowner pulled out a shotgun and the trespasser bailed? You wouldn't know. Why? Because no news channel worth their shit would report that. No one wants to hear about how guns are good. We want to hear how they are used to shoot up a school or a movie theatre or how some dude shot their family up because he went postal. That's what makes headlines. You also have to ask yourself, what kind of precedent does this set in Washington? If they ban guns, they are basically shitting all over an amendment that has been in since the beginning. After that, what's stopping them from attacking our beloved 1st amendment? Banning guns would only work against us.

 

[invadergir]

Arm the victims because banning guns is no option. Banning guns is just another way of pacifying the population.

Indeed, which is a GOOD thing in my opinion. How many times have guns been used in a BAD way since the initial revolution? And then how many times have they been used in a "GOOD" way, by overthrowing the goverment? I don't see Europeans, Canadians and other western nations being suppresed or whatever because the population is not armed like a disorganized mob like in America.

Banning guns is not going to stop anything. Where do you think all of your gang members get their guns? Not anywhere legally I can assure you. If someone wants to commit mass murder, there are other alternatives to guns as well. A bomb is just as effective if not more. They are also easier to conceal. Also, there are roughly 270 million registered guns in the hands of civilians in the United States. That's enough guns to give one to eight out of every ten American citizens and still have some left over. How do you propose we go about getting rid of them without some nationally unified effort, which I would be willing to put money down that it would never happen? Guns are also used in a good way all the time, you just don't hear about it. How many times a day does someone prevent themselves from being mugged on the streets of New York City because they're packing? How many home invasions are stopped short because the homeowner pulled out a shotgun and the trespasser bailed? You wouldn't know. Why? Because no news channel worth their shit would report that. No one wants to hear about how guns are good. We want to hear how they are used to shoot up a school or a movie theatre or how some dude shot their family up because he went postal. That's what makes headlines. You also have to ask yourself, what kind of precedent does this set in Washington? If they ban guns, they are basically shitting all over an amendment that has been in since the beginning. After that, what's stopping them from attacking our beloved 1st amendment? Banning guns would only work against us.

Argh. Banning all guns isn't the issue. Bomb-making isn't the issue (btw it's difficult now since the FBI tracks chemicals needed to make bombs since Oklahoma City. But wait, that doesn't fit your fox-news created argument. Feel free to bring up the right-wing tactic about cars killing people and making them illegal)

 

[Wintermute_v1legacy]

Yea, giving everyone a gun sounds like a great idea: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/student-brings-gun-to-school_n_2324143.html

 

[maninahat]

I pick the ban, if only because it takes away the weapons from otherwise honest citizens who would use the weapon in a crime of passion or suicide (the biggest killers by far), and creates a stumbling block for teenagers who plan massacres. Unlike professional criminals, middle-class school kids don't often have access to black markets, so without a convenient, legitimate method to get guns, I suspect a lot of massacres could be avoided.

Excuse me, what? Taking away weapons from honest citizens to avoid crimes of passion or suicides is a complete nonsense, because those will happen either way, only instead of a firearm a knife or a sledgehammer will be used. And at the same time you will disarm regular, responsible people who could use firearms to effectively defend themselves in a critical situation...A revision, or an update to these laws may be in order in the USA, but complete ban of firearms will *not* solve your problems, it will only create new ones (see UK for an example).

The "problem" in the UK being that the homicide, suicide and gun crime rates are all substantially lower?

Yes, in a crime of passion, a person will use whatever is closest to hand - meaning that even without a gun, they can still beat, stab or strangle people to death. I contend though that it is far easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife or a bat, and a victim's chances of survival may well depend on the fact that the assailant is incapable of inflicting as much damage.

I also contend that people are more than capable of defending themselves without guns, even though I can imagine circumstances where a gun would be more effective (particularly those in which you have to defend yourself from other people with guns - oh, wait...). Pepper sprays and tasers are generally far more appropriate for self defence for a multitude of reasons, but for some reason, some folk think they're for sissies and that only a gun is the only effective form of self defence.

are you suggesting that middle-class kids can legitimatelly obtain weapons on their own? That the current laws allow them to just go to a store and buy themselves a gun? Because I'm not convinced it is so.

It's generally known that mass killers get their weapons through legitimate means. The Columbine kids, for instance, got all of their weapons through gun shows. In the most recent case, the guns were owned by the mother of the culprit, though he himself was old enough to legally purchase long guns (but not the handguns).

Killing sprees are a symptom of societal problems in our current era, and cannot be entirely blamed on poor gun control.

The potency of a killing spree depends largely on how well armed the killer is. You can't expect to kill as many if all you can get hold of is a bat. When a killer lacks the means to kill as many people, they are less inclined to see it as a valid option - which is precisely why you don't have many English maniacs running around schools, trying to beat people with cricket bats.

 

[AnarchistFish]

I personally think that we should allow teachers to have a weapon in the classroom (doesn't necessarily need to be a gun) and have it in their desk or purse.

Sorry but this isn't particularly clever.

Know what we used to do in the 5 minutes before registration at school? Search through the desks. Hey look I've found a lser, pointing it in your face hahaha. Hey look a board marker. Hey look a fucking gun. Could be taken so easily.

Why the obsession with guns anyway? Just because you arm civilians it doesn't mean the gunman is gonna be dispatched of cleanly and efficiently. He'll probably have killed some people by the time everyone's realised what's going on, in that situation you're asking a fucking civilian to realise what's going on, keep enough composure to fire before being fired upon and kill someone. Besides, the gun could be used for any sorts of things outside of these rare and unlikely situations. Kid gets hold of it, it gets stolen, it goes off by accident.

Why promote that kind of suspicion and distrust anyway? Guns in primary schools? Seriously?

 

[RubyT]

...Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated...

The Nazis also killed about 10 Million red army soldiers. I guess those were mostly armed and technically able to defend themselves. But you go ahead and hold onto your fantasy that if the SS came for your family, you and your rifle would stop them.

 

[Whispering Cynic]

The "problem" in the UK being that the homicide, suicide and gun crime rates are all substantially lower?

Yes, in a crime of passion, a person will use whatever is closest to hand - meaning that even without a gun, they can still beat, stab or strangle people to death. I contend though that it is far easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife or a bat, and a victim's chances of survival may well depend on the fact that the assailant is incapable of inflicting as much damage.

I also contend that people are more than capable of defending themselves without guns, even though I can imagine circumstances where a gun would be more effective (particularly those in which you have to defend yourself from other people with guns - oh, wait...). Pepper sprays and tasers are generally far more appropriate for self defence for a multitude of reasons, but for some reason, some folk think they're for sissies and that only a gun is the only effective form of self defence.

"Killing sprees are a symptom of societal problems in our current era, and cannot be entirely blamed on poor gun control."

The potency of a killing spree depends largely on how well armed the killer is. You can't expect to kill as many if all you can get hold of is a bat. When a killer lacks the means to kill as many people, they are less inclined to see it as a valid option - which is precisely why you don't have many English maniacs running around schools, trying to beat people with cricket bats.

Well, UK is smaller then US and smaller population, so technically the number of gun crimes is bound to be lower. But, interestingly enough, after the gun ban was put in effect there the number of gun crimes has risen twofold, or even more in some regions throughout the last decade... there is a significant amount of illegal weapons in circulation, and anyone determined enough can get themselves a heater for a few hundred pounds.

And yes, while many people are capable of defending themselves without guns, there are many others who aren't so fortunate. And when you are about to be "culturally enriched" as we say in our neighborhood, you aren't going to be dealing with a single person. You are going to be confronted by a group of four or more people determined to rob you, or worse. Against a group of people you need either a larger melee weapon (with years of training on your side), or a gun (used correctly, it prevents you from getting surrounded - which is quite bad). And let's not forget the psychological factor - many criminals will reconsider taking their chances against you when they're staring into a gunbarrel.

As for stopping killing sprees, yes, I agree that gun ban can be quite effective in preventing a number of them, but it doesn't solve what's causing them. And since we established that even in countries with total firearm ban a sufficiently motivated person *can* obtain firearms... in the end you're still just disarming victims. And a deranged maniac bent on killing a lot of people doesn't need guns to do so. You just need industrial fertilizer and a bit of chemistry knowledge.

What I'm saying is that people are focusing on guns (which are only means to an end), while they should be focusing on the cause, on the "why" behind these attacks.

 

[Seventh Actuality]

Arm the victims is a childish bullshit fantasy by people who think possessing a handgun makes you Bruce Willis and hilarious internet lolbertarians with no idea how the world works.

 

[Biodeamon]

The thing about banning guns is that you can prevent anbody else from receiving games, however criminals don't obviously follow laws so that may be become a moot point. however the thing about arming a victim is that they themselves may be a ticking time bomb and you just handed them a detonator.

Personally i think it shouldn't take a few dead kids to get people to finally actually talk about this seriously.

 

[Something Amyss]

My problem comes from giving people guns who have no idea what the fuck they are doing with them.

Letting every random Joe own a gun is just about the silliest thing I can think of.

Mavis the Maths teacher pulls out a gun to protect her class. The safest place to stand is directly infront of her. She's never used a gun before and she isn't prepared for the kickback. As soon as she pulls that trigger the bullets will be flying everywhere but the direction she wants them to.

The attacker is safe but the roof is fucked.

Even someone trained to shoot could hit children, and crossfire with people panicking is never a good thing.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Neither option seems particularly productive, but given a choice between the two I'd say ban the guns. If you give everyone guns then more people are just going to end up dead.
Also this seems relevant:

 

[Something Amyss]

Personally i think it shouldn't take a few dead kids to get people to finally actually talk about this seriously.

It didn't used to. Remember, even Ronnie Raygun, Republican SuperJesus, supported gun control.

 

[BakedZnake]

BS snip

Your bullshit killed over 9000 million trillion people

Holtzman shield - http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Shield shit sorted out, you can all thank me now

 

[BodomBeachChild]

They'll never disarm the people. They're going to try and limit you getting ammo. Either way you're looking at it, to me, is a right and a wrong. We already have enough shit in place to delay and keep felons from getting guns, but guess what? They get them anyways. You can't just take guns away because they're already everywhere. The more you try the worse it will get.

 

[maninahat]

snip

Well, UK is smaller then US and smaller population, so technically the number of gun crimes is bound to be lower.

I said "rates" - as in, how many deaths/suicides/crimes per 1000 people. Even taking in the smaller population, the rates are still far higher in the US.

But, interestingly enough, after the gun ban was put in effect there the number of gun crimes has risen twofold, or even more in some regions throughout the last decade... there is a significant amount of illegal weapons in circulation, and anyone determined enough can get themselves a heater for a few hundred pounds.

That's true, though the reason for the crime increase is a consequence of gang violence and drug influence rather than gun legislation. I expect it would be higher still if guns were permitted.

And yes, while many people are capable of defending themselves without guns, there are many others who aren't so fortunate. And when you are about to be "culturally enriched" as we say in our neighborhood, you aren't going to be dealing with a single person. You are going to be confronted by a group of four or more people determined to rob you, or worse. Against a group of people you need either a larger melee weapon (with years of training on your side), or a gun (used correctly, it prevents you from getting surrounded - which is quite bad). And let's not forget the psychological factor - many criminals will reconsider taking their chances against you when they're staring into a gunbarrel.

Aware that people carry guns, most muggers simply stick a knife under your nose, grab you from behind without warning, or point their own guns at you - taking away whatever advantage your gun might have provided. Ironically, the fear of being shot has forced criminals to mitigate the danger of being shot with such tactics. I'm not going to pretend that guns aren't an excellent form of self defence, but people tend to over-emphasise their effectiveness or value in a mugging. The standard and official advice to anyone being mugged is to cooperate completely with their demands and hand over your valuables - the alternative is far more likely to get you hurt over anything else.

I did have a theory that open carrying should be completely banned whilst concealed carry should be encouraged. My logic is that openly carrying a firearm lets a criminal easily determine who is carrying a gun and who isn't - which puts those people who don't carry guns at a much more significant risk ("He clearly isn't carrying, grab him!"). Concealed carry, however, means that a criminal can't make the distinction - they don't know who's got a gun and who doesn't, so they have a reason not to risk attacking you. Concealed carry has the effect of protecting more than just those carrying them.

What I'm saying is that people are focusing on guns (which are only means to an end), while they should be focusing on the cause, on the "why" behind these attacks.

That's correct too. Sadly, the OT limited us to two choices and comprehensive societal and mental health legislation wasn't included.

 

[blackrave]

You know, where I live, it's against the rules for a kid to bring weapons, any sort of weapons, to school.

Wait, where are you from?
Are children using crayons or markers to write in schools in your area?
Because pen and pencil is pretty good melee weapon.
Not to mention scissors or paper knives.
Or boot laces or belts.

Basically if person wants to kill, he/she will always find the means.