It is fine as is.
Your thoughts on the Second Amendment
It's too late to change at this point. The US will always be mired in mindless violence and murder, it's just their thing.
@Mushir: We could start with the post above yours and the fact that socioeconomic and cultural differences are far greater influences on murder rate than number of guns per capita..... making your assertion flat out wrong:
Do not try to reduce crime down to who has the most guns. It doesn't work like that.
If you look at the countries with the highest amount of per capita guns, you will see a ton of countries that are at the bottom of the murder rates ranking.
We could continue with our bill of rights, and eventually end on the fact that Pandora's Box is already open anyhow, and a ban/strict restriction on guns would only really impact those following the law already anyhow.
If guns are outlawed, people who would do harm would either just get them illegally, or they would find other means to hurt people. I think there should be regulations so one person can't buy an entire armada, but I believe in the Second Amendment. I realize this sounds dumb, but it's like DRM. It doesn't stop piracy. It just forces them to get creative.
I think outlawing guns in the US at this point wouldn't do much more than get people upset, and make them find other ways to get a hold of a gun.
I still believe that fewer guns are better, but getting there feels like it would be a rough road.
@RainbowCarnage said:
@damnboyadvance said:
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. That's the way I see it.
Most outlaws become outlaws after they buy a gun.
James Holmes (the guy that shot people at the movie theater) He wasn't an outlaw before the shooting.
Regardless of whether or not guns were legal, people like Mr. Holmes would find a way to acquire firearms. You're going to have shooting rampages anyway, really.
You see, the problem with abolishing the Second Amendment is this: If you make something illegal, there will be a black market for it. The Prohibition proved this point. The War on Drugs has proven this point. Various other historical bans have proven this point as well. While I'd consider myself a liberal, this is a point where I disagree with most left-wingers. Keep guns legal, make drugs legal, etc. Black market problem solved.
Sorry if my writing's a little weak today; my mind's been a bit off for a few hours
Hi there,Thinking that guns are responsible for America's relatively high (but ultimately low) violent crime rate is to be completely ignorant of the problems that face people who live in America.
@Korolev said:
You know, the US does a lot of great things. Does a lot of right things - you put that rover on Mars and that's an accomplishment you can be proud of. But you don't do everything right. In some areas, other nations do it better than you, and gun control and criminal justice is one of them. I wouldn't trade the Australian Criminal Justice system for the American one any day of the week, nor would I want a US "You-can-own-just-about-anything" type system over here. I can walk down the street at night in the city without even worrying for a moment about being shot. I can't do that in the US.
I live in Richmond, VA, which has a really high per capita murder rate. Guns are not why you don't go down the street at night in certain areas. Unless you are involved in criminal activity, you won't get shot. Criminals die in gun violence. But we have plenty of people who want to commit crimes, and they can do plenty without guns and those things are why I don't walk certain streets at night.
Does Australia border a nation with murder rates five times its own? Does Australia have a problem with gang violence? Did Australia try to integrate into their country millions of ethnically and culturally different people who had been oppressed and lived in slavery, whose descendants continue to feel the effects through poverty and deprivation?
Switzerland, Norway, Australia, and a whole host of European countries who have low violent crime rates also have some of the most homogeneous racial and cultural makeups in the world. This mostly resulted by design, such as by Europe's current and historical resistance to multiculturalism, or historical policies like White Australia.
India is an incredibly diverse country in all respects, and while it is legal to own firearms in India, the laws are much stricter than in the United States. In a ranking of gun ownership rate by country in 2007:
The United States was first with 88.8 guns per 100 residents.
Switzerland was 4th, with 45.7 per 100 residents.
Sweden and Norway were 10th and 11th with about 31.
Mexico was tied with Australia for 42nd, with 15 guns per 100 residents.
India was ranked 110th with 4.2 guns per 100 residents.
And yet Mexico and Australia have almost opposite murder rates, Switzerland has an incredibly low rate, and India and the United States have very close murder rates. Sweden and Norway have double the amount of guns Australia has, but murder rates that are equal to or less than that of Australia.
Do not try to reduce crime down to who has the most guns. It doesn't work like that.
If you look at the countries with the highest amount of per capita guns, you will see a ton of countries that are at the bottom of the murder rates ranking.
It seems, Australia, the lesson you are teaching the world is not that guns cause crime, but that owning guns and keeping other ethnicities out of your country makes you safe. I hope you're happy with that.
"The top ten religions in Australia account for less than 63% of the population.[2]
According to the 2006 census, more than one fifth of the population were born overseas.[2] Furthermore, almost 50% of the population were either:
born overseas; or
had one or both parents born overseas.[2]
In terms of net migration per capita, Australia is ranked 18th (2008 Data) ahead of Canada, the USA and most of Europe.[3]"
(source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism_in_Australia#section_2)
Posting on a phone, so my apologies for the lack of a proper link.
Anyway, not denying Australia had the White Australia policy there, and we don't have the best history regarding the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population (albeit, leaps and bounds ahead of many other countries with a similar history of white colonisation), but your opinion on Australia in terms of population diversity comes across as rather ignorant.
I'd just like to take this time to thoroughly rebut some of the more nonsensical arguments made ITT:
1. "Assault weapons should be banned"- The main problem with this argument is mostly from ignorance; ignorance in gun laws, licensing, and crimes committed with said weapons. Besides the nebulous definition of what an "assault weapon" is (again due mainly to ignorance) there is the fact that functionally a Ruger Mini-14 and an AR-15 function exactly the same. Semi-auto technology has been around for over 100 years. The other frustrating aspect with this argument is the claim that, "joe blow can walk into a gun store and walk out with fully-automatic assault rifles." This simply isn't true and it's a claim that makes even the most casual gun-owner laugh.
2. "Regulate ammo sales; that'll stop the mass shootings"- In a word, no. It will slow people down in the way that speed bumps slow down cars; it's a minor inconvenience for a crazy person and will do absolutely nothing to curb violence. In addition, what agency and with what funds is said ammo regulation going to be done by? The understaffed and underfunded BATFE? The FBI? DHS? Not to mention the logistical nightmare it would be to try and enforce and how easy it would be to subvert.
3. "You don't need an "assault weapon" to hunt deer or self-defense"- This argument presupposes that the Second Amendment was written for the benefit of only hunting and/or self-defense from non-government forces. Neither of which is correct. It absolutely includes those reasons and the SCOTUS has twice now in the past four years reaffirmed this vs. McDonald and Heller decisions. But in all actuality it was created with the express purpose of the (thankfully) unlikely notion that the American people need to violently overthrow the government. To ban said weapons that are (in some ways) comparable to what our LE and Military possess would defeat the main purpose of the Second Amendment.
4. "The Second Amendment is outdated" or "The founders could've never predicted modern weaponry"- In what manner is the Second Amendment outdated? It provides adequate ways to protect oneself from criminals/harm (U.S. average police-response time is eight minutes nor are they required to protect you, per SCOTUS decision). Great for hunting and recreation (an often forgotten use in this debates) and in the unfortunate event of a civil uprising/war guns are pretty good for those too.
As for the second argument: It is so laughably short-sighted and hypocritical that it smacks of parody. I assume that if one made an argument to restrict the First Amendment because our forefathers couldn't foresee radio, television, or the internet would be completely acceptable to the person that makes this argument. Or that the Fourth Amendment is outdated because its unreasonable to have privacy in this age of technology that the Founders couldn't possible of imagined.
5. "If we banned guns, there would be less/no violence"- Not only does history (both recent and ancient) show us otherwise but aside from the restrictions on freedoms this would entail it would do nothing to address why violence actually occurs in societies. As others have stated, it's merely a band-aid solution. If America was serious about reducing violence (which is already at an all-time low: http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/gun-crime-continues-to-decrease-despite-increase-in-gun-ownership/) we'd be investing money/research in reducing poverty, inequality, and reforming our mental healthcare system.
This also doesn't even mention the eventual black markets and criminal syndicates that will rise to supply the demands of a market. Also if we were really want to save lives we should install ignition-lock devices on all vehicles as almost two thousand people were killed due to drunk driving accidents than gun homocides: http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics.
In conclusion, guns are here to stay and we need to look at the real causes of violence and address those rather then grandstand on an issue that won't even make a difference. I'm propose more education on the issue for all. But we all know how apprehensive we're to fund that but that's for another day and thread.
I'm curious how you guys are reading the second amendment. It says you have the right to keep and bear arms, it isn't specific about what sort of arms and the language is in no way restrictive. Using a strictly literal reading of the amendment could both result in the right to keep and bear nuclear weaponry, or since it doesn't specify firearms, no gun rights at all. It's an outdated bit of text that really has no value to modern society.
@Grimhild said:
@Sooty said:
@believer258 said:
I believe that I should be able to lawfully keep a gun for defense against those who would unlawfully keep a bigger gun.
See if that stupid second amendment wasn't still a thing you wouldn't have to worry about this, as most civilised first world countries don't have gun crime. (or barely any)
Now however there's too many guns in circulation to bother outlawing them. Shopkeepers would be at even more risk.
At least you're one of the few people in the anti-gun camp that recognizes this point. We're living in a society where there are boatloads of weapons already in circulation, so the sentiment of "outlawing guns in the US" it pretty feeble from a pragmatic standpoint. Most of these discussions devolve to either ego-driven shit slinging at "gun nuts" or overly-defensive jingoism. What ever your morals about it are, that's fine with me. But think about it logically. You can't snap your fingers and make all the firearms and the armed criminal element that already exist disappear. I still don't understand how that's so hard for people to realize.
Outlawing guns is less about the current generation and more about future generations. Do you want a society for your great great great grandchildren where gun crime is still rampant? I think it's worth risking a little safety for a lot of safety for future generations. I may not see those better times but part of me feels good contributing to the possibility of a less violent society.
I think we should have ID-tagged weapons and ID-tagged gear. War has changed.
@Cretaceous_Bob said:
It seems, Australia, the lesson you are teaching the world is not that guns cause crime, but that owning guns and keeping other ethnicities out of your country makes you safe. I hope you're happy with that.
Tell that to the Africans and the Asians, Man, you are living in the far distant past. Australia is extremely multicultural. Has been for decades. Ausralia hasn't had a significant killing spree since the Port Arthur Massacre, a long time ago - when strict gun laws were introduced. The average Australian doesn't have a gun because they don't need one. If you drilled deep into the statistics, most gun deaths are from illegal guns (which you will never stop), but more importantly, they are criminals killing criminals - not something the average citizen is terribly concerned about (more a policing matter). The same would apply to Mexico - it is the drug cartels doing all the killing, but unfortunately they don't stop with killing each other.
People should just quote raw statistics without giving some context to them. Even America's gun issues are a patchwork of cause and effect.
@shermanatorek said:
I think we should have ID-tagged weapons and ID-tagged gear. War has changed.
Modern technology can allow all guns to be 'fingerprinted'. All gun owners should be required at a miimum to take their gun to a police station to be fired and fingerprinted, backed up by all new sales the same. With that, the police would have a datbase of all guns sold and who they belong to, Then they can identify the gun from any crime (assuming it isn't illegally sought). That won't solve the problem, but it would be a good first step in control. There is no one answer to the problem.
@Contrarian said:
@Cretaceous_Bob said:
Modern technology can allow all guns to be 'fingerprinted'. All gun owners should be required at a miimum to take their gun to a police station to be fired and fingerprinted, backed up by all new sales the same. With that, the police would have a datbase of all guns sold and who they belong to, Then they can identify the gun from any crime (assuming it isn't illegally sought). That won't solve the problem, but it would be a good first step in control. There is no one answer to the problem.
No it won't. Ballistic fingerprinting has been an absolute failure. A quick wiki search proves that in all of Maryland only one murder was solved with fingerprinting at a cost of 2.4 mil per conviction. Otherwise it has been costly and entirely ineffective unless you think 2.4 mil for one conviction is worth it. (Hint: it's not).
And microstamping on the firing pin can also be easily defeated. Firing pins can be replaced. Reloaded ammo with other stamps on it can muddy up the stamp so bad that its indecipherable. Stamps can be filed away. Not to mention that used brass from other guns can be thrown down at a crime scene or casing could just be picked up. Or you could purchase a revolver become a serial killer and never have to worry about spent brass.
In the end you're just presenting honest people with another obstacle that costs them time and money and doesn't do a goddamn thing to solve any crime. It's nothing more than feel-good legislation at its finest.
@A_Talking_Donkey said:
I'm curious how you guys are reading the second amendment. It says you have the right to keep and bear arms, it isn't specific about what sort of arms and the language is in no way restrictive. Using a strictly literal reading of the amendment could both result in the right to keep and bear nuclear weaponry, or since it doesn't specify firearms, no gun rights at all. It's an outdated bit of text that really has no value to modern society.
I and many others read its as arms that you can carry on your person; in fact historically that was the definition: http://brainshavings.com/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-what/ (ignore the URL, can't find a different, less weird source for said paper).
Thus it would preclude nuclear arms; not that wanting to own one has anything to do with inherit moral values. Like anything it depends on the person but again not exactly cogent with the discussion at hand.
@Contrarian said:
@Cretaceous_Bob said:
It seems, Australia, the lesson you are teaching the world is not that guns cause crime, but that owning guns and keeping other ethnicities out of your country makes you safe. I hope you're happy with that.
Tell that to the Africans and the Asians, Man, you are living in the far distant past. Australia is extremely multicultural. Has been for decades. Ausralia hasn't had a significant killing spree since the Port Arthur Massacre, a long time ago - when strict gun laws were introduced. The average Australian doesn't have a gun because they don't need one. If you drilled deep into the statistics, most gun deaths are from illegal guns (which you will never stop), but more importantly, they are criminals killing criminals - not something the average citizen is terribly concerned about (more a policing matter). The same would apply to Mexico - it is the drug cartels doing all the killing, but unfortunately they don't stop with killing each other.
People should just quote raw statistics without giving some context to them. Even America's gun issues are a patchwork of cause and effect.
I don't know what you're going on about, except for agreeing with my point that guns are not related to crime. Drugs cause murder, gangs cause murder, etc.
@Tim_the_Corsair said:
Hi there, "The top ten religions in Australia account for less than 63% of the population.[2] According to the 2006 census, more than one fifth of the population were born overseas.[2] Furthermore, almost 50% of the population were either: born overseas; or had one or both parents born overseas.[2] In terms of net migration per capita, Australia is ranked 18th (2008 Data) ahead of Canada, the USA and most of Europe.[3]" (source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism_in_Australia#section_2) Posting on a phone, so my apologies for the lack of a proper link. Anyway, not denying Australia had the White Australia policy there, and we don't have the best history regarding the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population (albeit, leaps and bounds ahead of many other countries with a similar history of white colonisation), but your opinion on Australia in terms of population diversity comes across as rather ignorant.
I was making in absurdist terms the point that isolated, primarily white countries that manage their immigration carefully have less crime. I was making fun of people who make simple conclusions like "guns cause murder" with the simplest conclusion I could draw from the actual data: our racism was better than your racism. I was illustrating that you shouldn't make simple conclusions.
There are certain issues with your statistics, however, like how much of Australia's diversity isn't foreign born? Or how about the fact that a significant portion of Australia's immigration comes from white nations. The UK and New Zealand are Australia's two highest foreign born populations. Yeah, reeeeeal diverse.
You're talking about Australian policy as it exists today, not a comparison of the entire history of both nations in regards to national policies that would affect today's population diversity, and I think there's a reason for that.
@Cretaceous_Bob said:
@Contrarian said:
@Cretaceous_Bob said:
It seems, Australia, the lesson you are teaching the world is not that guns cause crime, but that owning guns and keeping other ethnicities out of your country makes you safe. I hope you're happy with that.
Tell that to the Africans and the Asians, Man, you are living in the far distant past. Australia is extremely multicultural. Has been for decades. Ausralia hasn't had a significant killing spree since the Port Arthur Massacre, a long time ago - when strict gun laws were introduced. The average Australian doesn't have a gun because they don't need one. If you drilled deep into the statistics, most gun deaths are from illegal guns (which you will never stop), but more importantly, they are criminals killing criminals - not something the average citizen is terribly concerned about (more a policing matter). The same would apply to Mexico - it is the drug cartels doing all the killing, but unfortunately they don't stop with killing each other.
People should just quote raw statistics without giving some context to them. Even America's gun issues are a patchwork of cause and effect.
I don't know what you're going on about, except for agreeing with my point that guns are not related to crime. Drugs cause murder, gangs cause murder, etc.
You can't read? I did everything opposite to agreeing with you. Australia has a low gun death rate because of tight gun controls. Therefore, less guns, less gun deaths. More importantly, less guns that can kill a lt of people, quickly, means nearly zero mass shootings. I don't quite know the statistics, but I am figuring there have been very few mass killings by a man armed with several knives.
The fact is that criminals will gain access to guns and that is true - BUT, criminals tend to kill criminals, so it isn't a big problem to society in general. The point being that if you make guns even more accessible, then they have more guns and infinitely worse, more criminal get access who wouldn't otherwise normally do so. The argument against gun control because criminals will still get guns is just plain spurious. That line comes down to, 'we have tried absolutely nothing and are all out of ideas'.
@Cretaceous_Bob said:
@Tim_the_Corsair said:
Hi there, "The top ten religions in Australia account for less than 63% of the population.[2] According to the 2006 census, more than one fifth of the population were born overseas.[2] Furthermore, almost 50% of the population were either: born overseas; or had one or both parents born overseas.[2] In terms of net migration per capita, Australia is ranked 18th (2008 Data) ahead of Canada, the USA and most of Europe.[3]" (source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism_in_Australia#section_2) Posting on a phone, so my apologies for the lack of a proper link. Anyway, not denying Australia had the White Australia policy there, and we don't have the best history regarding the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population (albeit, leaps and bounds ahead of many other countries with a similar history of white colonisation), but your opinion on Australia in terms of population diversity comes across as rather ignorant.I was making in absurdist terms the point that isolated, primarily white countries that manage their immigration carefully have less crime. I was making fun of people who make simple conclusions like "guns cause murder" with the simplest conclusion I could draw from the actual data: our racism was better than your racism. I was illustrating that you shouldn't make simple conclusions.
There are certain issues with your statistics, however, like how much of Australia's diversity isn't foreign born? Or how about the fact that a significant portion of Australia's immigration comes from white nations. The UK and New Zealand are Australia's two highest foreign born populations. Yeah, reeeeeal diverse.
You're talking about Australian policy as it exists today, not a comparison of the entire history of both nations in regards to national policies that would affect today's population diversity, and I think there's a reason for that.
So what you are saying is that it is all the fault of the non-white people in America for the crime problem? Seems so to me - Australia doesn't have a problem because it is mostly white, America has a big problem due to the large bumber of non-whites. Is that what you are saying? Here I thought that all people in America are Americans. Memory serves me, the whites had the guns first, then used them against black slaves, so I am figuring the gun culture stems from all them white people. Is it that the whites still want to protect themselves from all those 'different folk'?
@Box3ru13 said:
@Contrarian said:
@Cretaceous_Bob said:
Modern technology can allow all guns to be 'fingerprinted'. All gun owners should be required at a miimum to take their gun to a police station to be fired and fingerprinted, backed up by all new sales the same. With that, the police would have a datbase of all guns sold and who they belong to, Then they can identify the gun from any crime (assuming it isn't illegally sought). That won't solve the problem, but it would be a good first step in control. There is no one answer to the problem.
No it won't. Ballistic fingerprinting has been an absolute failure. A quick wiki search proves that in all of Maryland only one murder was solved with fingerprinting at a cost of 2.4 mil per conviction. Otherwise it has been costly and entirely ineffective unless you think 2.4 mil for one conviction is worth it. (Hint: it's not).
And microstamping on the firing pin can also be easily defeated. Firing pins can be replaced. Reloaded ammo with other stamps on it can muddy up the stamp so bad that its indecipherable. Stamps can be filed away. Not to mention that used brass from other guns can be thrown down at a crime scene or casing could just be picked up. Or you could purchase a revolver become a serial killer and never have to worry about spent brass.
So one life wasn't worth 2.4 million dollars? What do you the family of the dead person would think? I thought justice didn't have a price? It is only a failure of will - if it were properly mandated as a federal directive, whilst not foolproof (nothing is) and used in conjunction with other programmes, it can work. However, pro-gun lobbyists will ensure it fails, especially with the politicians it has bought.
as others have said, killing people is already illegal. gun laws are fine, sure the current laws most states have is perfectly fine, i see no real reason to make stricter national laws about this.
and dont go "well this country with stricter gun laws has less shootings". you would need an extremely indepth study to determine if that is due to the culture, society, community, employment rates, ect. theres WAY more factors to gun crimes than the gun laws. hell i'd say gun laws are a pretty low factor
I just think there need to be stricter laws on guns. I know that people are saying people can still get guns, but maybe if they get enforced a lot better, criminals will think twice about pulling guns out. Maybe get more armed security guards in places like movie theaters and schools. Maybe you have to have a mental health check up or something and if they find you have characteristics of a violent person, you can't carry a gun. I don't mind it, but I think people take advantage of it a bit much sometimes
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment