Gun control a comparison US vs Russia

[Nate505]

Gun control is impossible. Frankly, gun control suffers from the same problem that the drug war and most sorts of prohibition suffer from. That you cannot fight a law against supply and demand, unless the widget (for lack of a better term) demanded is extremely hard to produce (there is probably a huge demand for enriched uranium among terrorists, but thankfully not any jackass can produce it, and the one drug that the drug war almost totally eliminated was LSD, because the vast majority of it was supplied by a couple guys who were busted in 2000 or so and because it's somewhat difficult to make...though there the demand for psychedelics just got shifted to mushrooms).

With guns the market is saturated with them in the US. There are millions of guns around, even if all of a sudden they were made illegal. And if they were and if a gun war were declared, in addition to the guns already out in the marketplace little clandestine gun shops would open and they would be produced, as long as there was a profit to be made.

Gun control works well in Europe and Japan because there isn't much of a demand for them. If there were basic economic theory dictates that they would find their way over there, which has been proven out for damn near anything government has made illegal.

 

[LogGrad98]

Imho, gun control is more about control than guns.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I think making it easier rather than harder to murder another person has an effect you might expect. Societal issues are far more the culprit in homicide rates, but that doesn't mean that the practically universal ability to own machinery that kills by trigger isn't an accelerant.

 

[Stoked]

I think making it easier rather than harder to murder another person has an effect you might expect. Societal issues are far more the culprit in homicide rates, but that doesn't mean that the practically universal ability to own machinery that kills by trigger isn't an accelerant.

At that point you are only arguing the degree of the accelerant. What amount is to much and what amount is allowed? Also framing guns as an accelerant shows that they are not the root cause of the murders, only facilitate it. Would that not lead to trying to correct the cause instead of addressing the symptoms?

 

[NUMBERICA]

At that point you are only arguing the degree of the accelerant. What amount is to much and what amount is allowed? Also framing guns as an accelerant shows that they are not the root cause of the murders, only facilitate it. Would that not lead to trying to correct the cause instead of addressing the symptoms?

Who has framed this otherwise? Who has said we don't need to tackle the social underpinnings? And why should we not be concerned with matters that exacerbate an immensely tragic and absurd issue?

For my part, I think legislating meaningful gun control (hand gun ban) is sensible. Real results would take a generation or two (for a myriad of reasons) so we'd have to be patient (which might be the biggest impediment to anything like that working). But yes, I certainly prefer my lunatics wielding knives than semi-automatic hand guns.

I think the idea that disarming the common man of hand guns is the government protecting itself from revolution is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. For whatever that is worth.

 

[Stoked]

Who has framed this otherwise? Who has said we don't need to tackle the social underpinnings? And why should we not be concerned with matters that exacerbate an immensely tragic and absurd issue?

For my part, I think legislating meaningful gun control (hand gun ban) is sensible. Real results would take a generation or two (for a myriad of reasons) so we'd have to be patient (which might be the biggest impediment to anything like that working). But yes, I certainly prefer my lunatics wielding knives than semi-automatic hand guns.

I think the idea that disarming the common man of hand guns is the government protecting itself from revolution is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. For whatever that is worth.

Fair enough.

As for how it is framed. There are certainly those out there that are framing it as s guns issue and not indicative of something larger.

I absolutely disagree with a hand gun ban being sensible. It is not sensible. Preventing those with mental end emotional disabilities from owning a hand gun is sensible. But an out right ban? That will never even get lift off.

 

[LogGrad98]

Fair enough.

As for how it is framed. There are certainly those out there that are framing it as s guns issue and not indicative of something larger.

I absolutely disagree with a hand gun ban being sensible. It is not sensible. Preventing those with mental end emotional disabilities from owning a hand gun is sensible. But an out right ban? That will never even get lift off.

iawtp

When you start getting into this territory it is the same as prohibition. The practicality makes it unworkable, and it is a slippery slope.

 

[franklin]

Who has framed this otherwise? Who has said we don't need to tackle the social underpinnings? And why should we not be concerned with matters that exacerbate an immensely tragic and absurd issue?

For my part, I think legislating meaningful gun control (hand gun ban) is sensible. Real results would take a generation or two (for a myriad of reasons) so we'd have to be patient (which might be the biggest impediment to anything like that working). But yes, I certainly prefer my lunatics wielding knives than semi-automatic hand guns.

I think the idea that disarming the common man of hand guns is the government protecting itself from revolution is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. For whatever that is worth.

No thanks.

I'm more worried about the violence stemming from unregulated metalcore tbh. Why should we allow that kind of music to influence our children to violence?

 

[franklin]

iawtp

When you start getting into this territory it is the same as prohibition. The practicality makes it unworkable, and it is a slippery slope.

Again, gun rights should stand on its own merits. We don't need to defend this with side these trivial tangents, although I do get a huge kick every time the control issues crowd makes a push and further engrains guns into our culture and thus making taking them away even further from reality. Nothing better than seeing things blow up in the face of people acting stupidly.

 

[Bronco70]

I've known a few (not many, but a few) people who feel a handgun ban would be prudent, yet have never heard a reasonable proposal of how to implement such a measure. All sorts of ideas regarding retail gun sales, but nothing that addresses the 300 MILLION guns already in circulation. Many (most) of those have no reliable paper trail to prove ownership. So, essentially, you would have to ask that all handgun owners surrender their weapons voluntarily. The thought of this amuses me greatly. Not gonna happen. The cost and logistics of forcibly taking them would would be beyond prohibitive.

 

[♪alt13]

I think making it easier rather than harder to murder another person has an effect you might expect. Societal issues are far more the culprit in homicide rates, but that doesn't mean that the practically universal ability to own machinery that kills by trigger isn't an accelerant.

https://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=17847

In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent)...

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

yes, I certainly prefer my lunatics wielding knives than semi-automatic hand guns.

Some might use knives most will build bombs.

I think the idea that disarming the common man of hand guns is the government protecting itself from revolution is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. For whatever that is worth.

I find it highly unlikely that the day armed revolution becomes necessary in the US happens anytime soon. I also find it highly unlikely that day will never come. This country has always operated with a sense of duty to protect the liberty of future generations. If you listen to the rulings of judges they are always mindful of setting any precedent that would hinder the liberty of future generations in any way. I think that disarming the common citizen while it may not be dangerous today opens the door for future abuses of power. If you take a look at the policy of any totalitarian government in the world you will see that none of them allow there citizens(subjects) to be armed.

 

[♪alt13]

No thanks.

I'm more worried about the violence stemming from unregulated metalcore tbh. Why should we allow that kind of music to influence our children to violence?

You talk any more **** on Metal and I will rip your ****ing heart out and **** in the hole. waaaaaaaaahahowww