What is America's problem with guns?

[Auzzie Taco]

I sit here and see the endless shootings over in the USA, and want to know, what is the deal with guns? Over here, you can own small arms, but it must be locked up, and can only be loaded when target shooting. You also can't have a major criminal record to buy one. I see endless spunkgargleweewee making millions, and the most praised movie of 2012 is about the shooting of one man, and how "amazing" that was. Didn't Martin Luther King say "I would mourn the deaths of thousands, but never rejoice the death of one?"

 

[TheEmoGhost]

I sit here and see the endless shootings over in the USA, and want to know, what is the deal with guns? Over here, you can own small arms, but it must be locked up, and can only be loaded when target shooting. You also can't have a major criminal record to buy one. I see endless spunkgargleweewee making millions, and the most praised movie of 2012 is about the shooting of one man, and how "amazing" that was. Didn't Martin Luther King say "I would mourn the deaths of thousands, but never rejoice the death of one?"

Let the hate mail pour in my friend

 

[Keoul]

Because they like guns but there's crazy people who like to shoot people with the guns so they don't want the guns but at the same time they still like the guns because how else are they gunna protect themselves?.

It's a very complicated and debated topic, which you shall soon experience full force!

 

[The Funslinger]

And to think I thought we were past these threads for the time being...

 

[Snotnarok]

I think a lot of people don't realize that these 'legal guns' involved in shootings were stolen from legal owners by family members. So gun control seems to work just fine however the acquisition of illegal guns still seems to be easy.

And what the media didn't say about the latest shooting was the kid was insane as was the mother, the mother thought 2012 was going to happen along with other things. So it's video games/movies/musics fault, NOT that those involved were batshit crazy, because that's is their right to be crazy.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

If they want guns, let them have guns. My problem is that they act like 2 year olds when you mention your taking there toys away. When all they were doing is making it harder for the wrong people to buy them. They act immaturely instead of having a proper discussion on how the gun owners can continue safely and the nutcases can not own them.

 

[Jedamethis]

Well, how else are they going to defend themselves from their own people who they armed with guns?
Really I think they just buggered themselves early on and now they can't get rid of them.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

The problem is that the US has, apparently, both too many guns and not enough.

I suggest we shut the US in a box and let quantum physics settle it.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Because Americans would sooner give up their lungs then their guns.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Democrats say guns are the issue, Republicans say nutjobs are the issue.

Personally?

Both things are an issue.

You tell me which one is easier and quicker to handle.

Just to start with and, you know, do something about it.

 

[PZF]

Democrats say guns are the issue, Republicans say nutjobs are the issue.

Personally?

Both things are an issue.

You tell me which one is easier and quicker to handle.

Just to start with and, you know, do something about it.

Both things are an issue. Guns are just the easy scapegoat. Developing a process of finding people who are mentally insane is a much harder process.

 

[chadachada123]

Democrats say guns are the issue, Republicans say nutjobs are the issue.

Personally?

Both things are an issue.

You tell me which one is easier and quicker to handle.

Just to start with and, you know, do something about it.

I do seriously think that the fact that every mass shooting in the US in the past thirty+ years has only happened in a "gun-free" zone is indicative of something.

No one has ever tried to shoot up, say, a gun show or shooting range (in the US). They always go to a place where everyone is guaranteed to be a) unarmed b) plentiful in number and generally c) young or around their age.

At the very least, the fact that we have twenty armed guards for the President but don't allow teachers to at least be trained to carry themselves is, as far as I can see, one of the main reasons these shootings are so common AND so successful.

TL;DR, guns are less of an issue than placing our children all in one spot where they are guaranteed to have no protection. We arm our banks and armored trucks to protect the wealth of the rich, but can't give the same decency to our children?

 

[SuperSuperSuperGuy]

I happen to live in Canada. My country, despite being right next to the states, is not too big on guns, and we have tougher gun laws than them. Our gun-related crime rate is far lower as well. The question that I first asked myself was "why are the Americans so fixated on the idea of guns?"

The answer to that lies in fundamental differences in culture born of vastly different histories. If we look at how both America and Canada earned their independence from the British empire, we can see a very interesting correlation between that and the two countries' current philosophies on guns. While America won their independence through war and revolution, Canada earned it through diplomacy. The Americans killed a bunch of redcoats, while we asked politely over tea and crumpets. That's a huge difference, and it's reflected in our countries' present attitudes, in that, in America, it's considered a right to own a firearm, but it's a lot of trouble to get one in Canada. Violence is ingrained into American culture, as is self-righteousness.

The ease at which just any old joe can buy a gun in the states really contributes to the crime rates. While it is a fact that criminals who would buy a gun off of the black market will get one, anyway, it is also a fact that people can just go out and buy a gun, and that means that anyone can snap and kill someone. They don't have to bother buying it illegally. Think of it like this: a chair is meant for sitting on. You don't intend to hurt anyone with it. But if you have one, and you get really pissed off, you can use it as a weapon. If there is no chair, there is no threat of impulsively using it as a weapon. It's the same with guns; possessing a gun allows someone to go out on an impulse-shooting spree. Not everyone will do this, but without regulation, a person with a history of mental illness can just go out and pick up a firearm. Here in Canada, however, you have to apply for a licence, do a test, and get your background checked for any medical issues, be they physical or mental. After this entire process, if you are eligible for a licence, you will get one. But it's a big hassle, so the only people who legally own guns are people who hunt and have no problems that can result in a loss of control.

America's problem is that guns are a big part of their culture and history. Everyone has the right to own a deadly weapon, even those who may misuse them on impulse, and because they're so deeply entwined with American society there is little to no hope of social reform at this point in time. In Canada, a gun is a privilege, and to own one a person has to work for it.

 

[Twilight_guy]

For one, we do have gun laws. Thanks for implying that we give guns to criminals. For two, because England and founding notions built around the idea that you have to have a gun in case you need to overthrow the government. For three, because our culture is not your culture and neither you nor I want us to have the same culture. You have some problem, we have a some problems, and neither of us are perfect.

 

[Haagrum]

I do seriously think that the fact that every mass shooting in the US in the past thirty+ years has only happened in a "gun-free" zone is indicative of something.

No one has ever tried to shoot up, say, a gun show or shooting range (in the US). They always go to a place where everyone is guaranteed to be a) unarmed b) plentiful in number and generally c) young or around their age.

At the very least, the fact that we have twenty armed guards for the President but don't allow teachers to at least be trained to carry themselves is, as far as I can see, one of the main reasons these shootings are so common AND so successful.

TL;DR, guns are less of an issue than placing our children all in one spot where they are guaranteed to have no protection. We arm our banks and armored trucks to protect the wealth of the rich, but can't give the same decency to our children?

Because, unlike children, banks, armoured trucks and the President are all high-value targets which a person may rationally want to attack?

In response to the above (generally valid) points, I would offer the following questions:

(1) Do you (or anyone else in the US, or elsewhere) feel as though you are constantly at risk of being attacked unless you're carrying a firearm? Why/why not?

(2) Is it appropriate to introduce firearms into a school on an ongoing basis? Why/why not?

(2A) If "Yes" to #2, how much more will teachers need to be paid? Will maintaining firearms qualifications be mandatory for all teachers? Why/why not?

(3) Should university students over the age of 18 be encouraged to carry firearms as well?

(4) Could the purpose of the Second Amendment (i.e. the "well-regulated militia" part) be achieved against a modern army, whether that be the US Army or another nation's? Why/why not?

I'm not proposing a solution to gun violence in the USA, because I don't have one. My view is that "gun culture" is far too large and well-entrenched to be appropriately addressed by someone who doesn't live in the States or hasn't researched it extensively. What I think is appropriate is to ask people why they think control or proliferation is the answer, and for evidence showing why they think that.

 

[PZF]

In response to the above (generally valid) points, I would offer the following questions:

(1) Do you (or anyone else in the US, or elsewhere) feel as though you are constantly at risk of being attacked unless you're carrying a firearm? Why/why not?

Constantly? No, but for the .0000000001% I might be, it sure would be nice to have it.

(2) Is it appropriate to introduce firearms into a school on an ongoing basis? Why/why not?

Yes

(2A) If "Yes" to #2, how much more will teachers need to be paid? Will maintaining firearms qualifications be mandatory for all teachers? Why/why not?

Some teachers wouldn't need to be compensated, other might be. But, all teachers should not have a weapon, mainly due to not all will be able to maintain, train and handle the responsibility that come with firearm ownership.

(3) Should university students over the age of 18 be encouraged to carry firearms as well?

Encouraged, no. Allowed, yes. This goes back to not everyone can handle the responsibility of firearm ownership. Also, a Firearm owner only dorm should be establish for those living on campus, it will also be a dry dorm (no alcohol) . Collage kids + booze + guns don't mix.

(4) Could the purpose of the Second Amendment (i.e. the "well-regulated militia" part) be achieved against a modern army, whether that be the US Army or another nation's? Why/why not?

One word. Afghanistan. People always bring up tanks and drones, but there are a finite number of each, further a finite number of those who can operate said equipment. Then factor in the people who will not fight against American citizens. I'm not say it would be totally winnable, but it would defiantly be a costly battle for both sides involved. I hope it never, ever has to come to that though.

 

[chadachada123]

snip

In response to the above (valid) points, I would offer the following questions:

(1) Do you (or anyone else in the US, or elsewhere) feel as though you are constantly at risk of being attacked unless you're carrying a firearm? Why/why not?

(2) Is it appropriate to introduce firearms into a school on an ongoing basis? Why/why not?

(2A) If "Yes" to #2, how much more will teachers need to be paid? Will maintaining firearms qualifications be mandatory for all teachers? Why/why not?

(3) Should university students over the age of 18 be encouraged to carry firearms as well?

(4) Could the purpose of the Second Amendment (i.e. the "well-regulated militia" part) be achieved against a modern army, whether that be the US Army or another nation's? Why/why not?

I'm not proposing a solution to gun violence in the USA. What I think is appropriate is to ask people why they think control or proliferation is the answer, and for evidence showing why they think that.

1) Me, personally? No, because, statistically-speaking, gun crime IS extremely rare everywhere except the cities (which is not where the majority of people live in the US). As for other people? I think that the general public fear-mongers the hell out of anything that they themselves don't understand and assumes that they are around every corner. This doesn't apply for people living in inner Chicago, Detroit, or any other gang-ridden shithole, who kind of ARE at constant risk of being attacked.

2) Idealistically, I think that teachers should be allowed to defend their own freaking lives against an attacker, as should ANY person. Practically-speaking, I think that this should be tested to see if this solution works well. So long as the public doesn't know WHICH teachers are carrying, I'd imagine that school would be made plenty safer in the event of an attack. This is a good chance to note that not everyone is fit for carrying. On the contrary, only those that know how to operate a firearm and have the balls to protect themselves and others should be allowed to teach/carry concurrently.

This is also a good spot to tell a short story. Eric and Dylan, the two shooters of Columbine, planned to kill the school's (armed) police officer first before killing anyone else. They knew that he would be the sole resistance until the police arrived, that they would be able to kill anyone they wanted once he was eliminated without a soul to retaliate. This officer ended up being sick that day anyway, meaning the school had no one, undercover or otherwise, to fight back.

I don't think that teachers need to be paid more for this at all. The ones that wish to carry should be able to volunteer to take a course (paid by the school or not, doesn't really matter) and be certified for concealed carry, after passing a mental exam or whatever. It will just be a voluntary extension for those that want to protect themselves/their kids. I think the same standard should apply to pilots, who, despite being in control of a FUCKING JET, aren't allowed to arm themselves...because...of no reason or logic whatsoever.

3) ENCOURAGED? No, because this will trivialize firearms and their importance. Most people are quite unfit for self defence, and shouldn't approach one unless they are ready for the dedication and respect needed. However, those that WISH to carry should be encouraged to take a concealed carry course and do some shooting to see if it is their thing, and, if they pass the course, should be *allowed* to carry concealed on a college campus, yes. (Side note, Jesus Christ is this a lot of "C" words to type out: Carry, concealed, college, campus, course).

4) No, because the 2nd Amendment was written specifically to give people the ability to fight back against ALL enemies of liberty, including our own government. Our nation was founded by traitors fighting armed resistance against an oppressive regime, and these founders knew that, if necessary, this country would need to fight some day in the future if the government again got too powerful. This specifically means giving the common man the SAME access to weaponry as our formally-armed soldier brethren.

This also requires a populace that CARES enough about their liberty to fight for it, which, unfortunately, we do not have here.

A fantastic three-minute video on the subject can be found here:

http://www.fox19.com/story/20399062/the-very-politically-incorrect-truth-about-the-second-amendment

I don't speak for all Americans, nor all libertarians, nor all gun owners. Truthfully, my biggest thing is that I simply don't trust humans, and would like to defend myself, and think others should be able to defend their lives too without waiting ten minutes for help from police who don't even have a legal obligation to protect them.