Gun control in America

I open this forum to debate whether or not there is a practical answer to controlling gun possession and violence in, America. I often look at the "war on guns" as i do the, "war on drugs." Guns are already here and they're not going anywhere. Especially with the advent of technology (3d printers) they're only going to be more easily acquired. I think putting more restrictions and rules on gun possession is a good start but it is by no means an answer. I also think outlawing guns in general would have adverse affects.

At a certain point i think we as a nation just need to learn to live with the fact that this type of violence is going to happen. It's become apart of our world and much like drugs, i think the best place to battle the violence is spreading awareness and understanding in the communities.

The problem with that view and that comparison is that the effect of the war in drugs is pretty much the same all over western civilization. We can see that as inevitable.

When it comes to guns and gun violence, the US is the weird outlier in the west. No other western country has anything remotely like its issues. It is not normal, and it is not a state of affairs that is inevitable or simply needs to be put up with. It can, should and will be challenged.

Disclaimer: I'm not an American.

But, my stance on gun control is basically that I don't think guns should be 'outlawed' (I don't think that's the stance of many people tbh, the Republicans just seem to assume it is), but that the range of guns that people can buy is too wide.

In England, you can actually own guns, contrary to what most people assume. The people most associated with them are farmers (the main rule is you need to be able to prove that you need them for defence of property, etc.), but I've met plenty of other people who own a few guns. The thing is, they're all rifles and shotguns. Which, to me, makes sense. I don't see why assault rifles are on the market in America, because it's all in the name: assault. You don't need a gun of that magnitude to defend yourself, which is what gun ownership is all about (aside from hunting, but again, you don't need an AK-47 to take down some geese. Unless you're a really crap hunter, in which case, don't ****ing hunt). A shotgun suffices in every situation. Personally, I plan on owning a shotgun in later life, once I've moved out to the country.

School shootings aren't a thing in England. Every once in a while, something gun-related happens, but they are few and far between. There's no need to be packin', just in case some nutjob runs into the shopping centre – and if it does happen, then it happens. Because it doesn't happen regularly enough for us all to be constantly reaching for our holsters, just in case some man of darker skin goes to get something out of his bag. (This part is a critique of the notion of "gun attacks kill the most in areas where people aren't carrying guns all the time" – it's a ridiculous stance to take, and I'd never want to be a part of a society that reactionary and paranoid.)

For better or worse, guns exist, so getting rid of them outright in America is out of the question, but as Ush said, there is a problem in America that doesn't exist anywhere else. It needs to be addressed, and if all gun owners can do is be huge reactionists and fling their arms up in the air and squeal "Dey try'n'a take er guns frum us!!!" (obviously I'm generalising somewhat here) then nothing is going to get done. Nobody wants to prise your guns from your cold, dead hands. They just want to stop people being murdered on a large scale all year 'round.

There is a compromise in the gun control situation. It just seems that it's impossible to approach yet, because of how quickly any discussion about gun control escalates.

There was actually a gun in my house for a long time- my father kept a fancy shotgun for sporting. Even just having that necessitated a regular visit from a Royal Military Policeman to check it was secure.

He keeps an air rifle instead these days.

So indeed, the target is never total prohibition. As I have said in threads before, it's about confronting culture, and some amount of prohibition has to form part of that. In England, no-one can keep a gun that they could reasonably go on a rampage with- but in the end, it's not the laws stopping the rampages, it's the lack of aggressive gun culture. The laws just reflect that.

The thing is though when you try to prohibit certain things in this country it tends to potentially have a backlash that makes things worse.

The sad reality is you need these new laws to change things, but the laws will never be changed until the people change, which..well, won't happen. Not unless you put some kind of Professor X style telepathic whammy on a large group of people in this country.

I don't really believe US attitudes never change. Look at race relations.

That's just it though, these people feel like they have nothing left now BUT their firearms.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
I open this forum to debate whether or not there is a practical answer to controlling gun possession and violence in, America. I often look at the "war on guns" as i do the, "war on drugs." Guns are already here and they're not going anywhere. Especially with the advent of technology (3d printers) they're only going to be more easily acquired. I think putting more restrictions and rules on gun possession is a good start but it is by no means an answer. I also think outlawing guns in general would have adverse affects.

At a certain point i think we as a nation just need to learn to live with the fact that this type of violence is going to happen. It's become apart of our world and much like drugs, i think the best place to battle the violence is spreading awareness and understanding in the communities.

If a government wanted to decrease future sales of guns for the domestic market it could levy massive taxes on all types of weapons and/or ammunition thus limiting the number of people who could afford them.
To mitigate losses to the arms manufacturers you reduce red tape for exports.

Fund a gun amnesty to bring in a chunk of the ones still in circulation

That would decrease gun ownership without any gun control laws needing changed at all.

Originally posted by Surtur
That's just it though, these people feel like they have nothing left now BUT their firearms.

Which is kinda sad, as I'm pretty sure most of these people have a lot more going on in their lives than this.

And one the things is, a lot of these people are in rural areas, while at the same time we have people dying in urban areas thanks to how easy it is to get guns and ammo.

Still, I can see a solid argument for leaving guns relatively unrestricted, but enacting the ammo restrictions other countries have. In some countries, it's the bullets that are hard to come by, and while places like gun ranges can get them, even those with legitimate reasons to have ammo at home get fairly small amounts.

I'm on Scribble's view. Ownership of certain types of guns, like rapid-fire guns (assault rifles, uzis, machine guns, SMGs), armor-piercing guns (magnums), and explosive guns (rocket launchers, grenade launchers, HEI rounds) should be prohibited to civilians.

The last shooting massacre in Australia happened 19 YEARS AGO.
We've proven gun control does work.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
At a certain point i think we as a nation just need to learn to live with the fact that this type of violence is going to happen. It's become apart of our world and much like drugs, i think the best place to battle the violence is spreading awareness and understanding in the communities.

I'm not sure how far understanding and awareness goes when you communicate that in certain parts of american ghettos that have gun deaths practically everyday (illegal guns being used.)

Realistically guns are so ingrained in the US culture it would take generations of culture change to remove guns from the USA without revolts.

Originally posted by Q99
Which is kinda sad, as I'm pretty sure most of these people have a lot more going on in their lives than this.

And one the things is, a lot of these people are in rural areas, while at the same time we have people dying in urban areas thanks to how easy it is to get guns and ammo.

Still, I can see a solid argument for leaving guns relatively unrestricted, but enacting the ammo restrictions other countries have. In some countries, it's the bullets that are hard to come by, and while places like gun ranges can get them, even those with legitimate reasons to have ammo at home get fairly small amounts.

My dad and I would go deer hunting with no more than three or four rifle bullets each. Why? Because when you're deer hunting, you generally don't get more than one chance to shoot when you see the deer.

With home protection, I can't envision a scenario where a home owner needs more than ten bullets--they're not getting into a lengthy shootout.

Now, if you want to perform a mass shooting, sure, a few hundred bullets is ideal.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
The last shooting massacre in Australia happened 19 YEARS AGO.
We've proven gun control does work.

For the US, here's a chart made this October:

Mass shooting tracker

The backlash with stringent gun control would be criminals would look for alternate ways to kill people, prob more gruesome ways. Like knives, Molotov cocktails, baseball bats, homemade flamethrowers . My point is killers will continue to kill. We can't control gun and ammo supply 'cause then we'd be messing with big-time syndicates. So the best solution really is to eliminate these mafia/syndicates.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
The backlash with stringent gun control would be criminals would look for alternate ways to kill people, prob more gruesome ways. Like knives, Molotov cocktails, baseball bats, homemade flamethrowers . My point is killers will continue to kill. We can't control gun and ammo supply 'cause then we'd be messing with big-time syndicates. So the best solution really is to eliminate these mafia/syndicates.

It has been done in other countries, including most recently Australia, a very similar country in many ways, and the gruesomeness has *not* gone up.

Some killers will continue to kill, but there is a such thing as a second degree murder, where someone just attacks in the heat of the moment- with whatever's convenient.. Also, first degree murders with less effective weapons are less likely to succeed. Also-also, stuff like armed robberies have a smaller chance of getting out of hand and resulting in death. Criminals, like most people, have a streak of laziness to them. Also, there's the fairly significant number of accidental gun deaths.

Eliminating mafia syndicates won't solve things on the wide scale, and controlling guns puts them in a pinch. If they keep theirs, then they stand out more and are easier for the still-armed police to find and catch. If they don't, then they have less firepower when they are caught.

It's not the criminals that would worry me. I mean not that it wouldn't be a problem, but if they really banned guns then all these nutjobs would possibly come out of the woodwork. It'd be the final sign to them that the country has "gone to hell" and yep it is pretty much people in rural areas.

I'm not saying anything would be guaranteed to happen, just that the chances something would aren't so low that I'd rather not find out.

Yeah, people would pretty much riot, storming the streets with their guns out and start shooting randomly.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Yeah, people would pretty much riot, storming the streets with their guns out and start shooting randomly.

I don't see that happening at all.

I don't know about randomly shooting people, but it would be possible for some of these nutjobs to try to pull something. Especially when they are surrounded by like minded people.

But we have seen riots over things like sports games so who knows.