My compromise for gun control

Nothing can be done

Basically this is just ‘I don’t want anything to be done’

But many gun lobbyists (not all) don’t want to come out and say that they really are not that bothered if criminals and the irresponsible have easy access to guns and don’t care about the daily deaths and murders.

 

Murderous Americans

There are differing versions of this but all seem to be based on the idea that Americans are more murderous than other any other people. That it is not ease of access to very lethal weapons that are to account for the much higher rates of gun related deaths in the US what is the real problem is the murderous nature of Americans.

That even if Americans did not have ease of access to guns they would still go out and kill just as many people with knives, baseball bats or spoons, because they so like to kill and injure. That if they couldn’t get easy access to guns they would dedicate themselves to learn all the chemical and machining knowledge to build themselves guns, canon or bombs because they are so committed to death and destruction.

There seems to me to be several problems with this.

Are Americans inherently more violent than other people? I don’t see that I’ve meet many Americans and have visited the US (or at least California) and that wasn’t my impression.

Are these people arguing that it is US society and way of life that creates violent people? If so shouldn’t they be doing something about that?

Then there is the problem about how lethal are differing types of weapon, yes knives, baseball bats and yes even spoons can be used to injure and even kill but there are not as good at doing it than a gun, that is why it is the weapon of choice for the military.

So if you actually do believe Americans are inherently or by up bring likely to violence then it would seem the height of absurdity to given them such ease of access to guns.

 

Diversity as a reason for the high levels of gun related deaths in the US.

This just seems like another variation on the ‘Murderous Americans’ argument.

Well first I’d say that I live in London which is one of the most diverse cities in the world and here is something I wrote a few years back on that -

I live in London it has a population of around 7.5 million and it only had 175 homicides between Apr-2005 to Apr-2006. In fact in 2009 there were only 651 murders in the whole of England and Wales with a population of around 55 million.

But let us take an American city – Philadelphia* – it I believe has a population of around 6.1 million yet it had 406 homicides in that same year. So two Philadelphia’s with only 12.2 million people would create 812 murders, more than what is produced by 55 million Brits.

Then I’d have to ask which groups are you talking about? Which do these people think are the cause of the violence and why they think that is so?

Also if this is really believed to be the reason for the high levels of violence then how is having easy access to guns going to help the situation.

 

Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related homicide rate is 25 times higher. Although it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, the U.S. had 82 percent of all gun deaths, 90 percent of all women killed with guns, 91 percent of children under 14 and 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed with guns.

Wiki

 

To what tune?

 

Maybe the tune that gun lobbyists take when their arguments fall flat and they have nothing of substance to contribute.

It's usually a kind of disjointed humming or whistle that people make in the hope that nobody realises what they have just said is crap.

LOL

 

I was thinking along the lines of Mad Magazine's lyrics to popular tunes. They had Spock singing to "I'll never fall in love again" . Twas most hilarious!

 

I object to buy back programs aimed at banning certain types of firearms due the lack of evidence of it's effectiveness. Plus there are many lawful and recreational uses for the firearms you want banned. I also object to the ammo limit pretty much on the same premise. There is no evidence, to my knowledge, such a law prevents gun violence. Not to mention the many lawful reasons why you may need a large amount of ammo.

 

Australia has implemented just such a program. Science provides every reason to expect it to be successful. I suppose it’s possible Aussies are just smarter than Americans, and they will certainly be safer. Balbus just exposed two of the classic non-sequitors peddled by the US gun lobby and NRA.

 

Gun crime is low in Europe because of gun laws. Sure criminals get guns (mostly from the US) but the penalties for them are so high you don't waste it on common people. How many Europeans here have even seen a gun? Even other countries pro gun people use as "good guy" examples like Norway and Switzerland are nothing like the lawless American culture. Gun owners like to point out how low crime is in Norway when it's very common to own guns in the country side for hunting. Yeah but can they own a Ar-15? They can not and the police don't need a warrant to enter your home because you own guns.

OK let's do that here since the alt-right gun owner likes Scandinavia for totally not racial reasons right? So it has to be the laws those white people think of. Let's have strong limits on military weapons. Most guns outside pistols and shotguns usually have a tactical advantage vs humans if you dig deep enough and that's why the NRA fights so hard for them. Existing laws mean nothing to anyone with basic mechanical skills. Guns become full auto when they are sold as semi easily and the gun owner will say existing laws work assuming you are too dumb to know what they talk about with each other.

 

Mac

How are buy back programs aimed at ‘banning certain types of firearms’, nothing was mentioned about banning in that proposal, to repeat it

Buyback programs - to get rid of or lower the number of midnight specials, assault weapons, etc.

I don’t think the ‘get rid of’ is ‘ban’ it’s about getting rid of unwanted guns, to get them out of circulation.

To me a Buyback/Amnesty schemes don’t seem as threatening as you seem to see them, they are voluntary and probably not that expensive to run. I mean if any unwanted guns are handed in that at least gets them out of circulation and the likelihood of them falling into the hands of criminals or the irresponsible. Is that massively ‘effective’ well probably not but every little counts, so I can’t really understand your objectives to it, can you explain?

What lawful and recreational uses do ‘I’ want to ban, which proposal talk of that, where do you think I have said it?

As is a matter of record I grew up in the countryside and as a teenager was a member of a gun club but I moved on and now live in a big city. To repeat I could own a gun now but I don’t see the point as I live in a city where there is no hunting where vermin are destroyed by professionals and I don’t fear being attacked.

Who needs large amounts of ammo, what are these lawful reasons? I mean unless you think there is going to be a Zombie apocalypse LOL who do you think needs a ton of ammo?

*

Sorry Mac but you seem woefully lacking in detail on these points and sorry to say seemingly inaccurate in at least two of them.

As said you seem to agree on most of the proposals could you ever see yourself actively pushing for them?

 

Australia is actually in the minority in banning certain firearms. There are western nations with less strict laws and fewer gun deaths.

 

Our greatest cultural export... gun violence

 

Mac

Yes and we have discussed that - why keep repeating such statement while not addressing outstanding criticisms of them like here we have already seen that the situation and laws those nations you reference are very different than those in the US?

For example the EU prerequisite in relation to gun ownership of having a ‘good cause’ having a rational and reasonable reason for wanting and owning a gun.

Is having a gun because a person wishes to be ability to murder his political opponents if they so desired a rational and reasonable reason for wanting a gun?

You are an ex police officer and have presumably gone through the training and psych evaluations involved in that and may also have good reason to fear attack but what about the dentist or accountant with no known enemies and living in a quiet suburb who say they need a gun for protection, is that rational and reasonable when the majority of people they know and live near don’t feel that need?

And what if the dentist or accountant - like 50% of gun owners and because there is no regulation asking for it - make no effort to secure or lock up their guns is it rational and reasonable for society to allow that, given the danger to the public good?

 

I object to the mandatory style buy back program similar to what Australia has. As long as it's voluntary and those who want to keep such weapons are allowed to, I don't have anything against it.

I misunderstood what you meant by a buy back program. If it's voluntary then I don't have any problems.

People who participate in competition shooting or live in remote or natural disaster prone areas for starters. My question to you is why do you feel the need to limit the amount of ammo a law abiding citizen has?

Probably not but where I am now would've been inconceivable a few years back.

 

No.

Sure. It's just as reasonable for someone to have a firearm for protection who normally doesn't encounter situations where he might need one as it is for someone to have a first aid kit even though they don't run into situations that doesn't normally happen when strictly speaking about probabilities. Violent crimes can and do happen anywhere.

First I would question the validity of the 50% rate before answering that.

 

Mac

Who needs large amounts of ammo, what are these lawful reasons? I mean unless you think there is going to be a Zombie apocalypse LOL who do you think needs a ton of ammo?

This was a MeAgain proposal but I’m guessing like most regulations there will be exemptions for certain circumstances. Why would people need a lot of ammo for natural disaster prone areas?

Well in the same way that you would need a licence to buy a gun then you’d need the same licence to buy ammo. So a limited supply would lessen the amount that could fall into the wrong hands if stolen.[/quote]

 

Mac

what about the dentist or accountant with no known enemies and living in a quiet suburb who say they need a gun for protection, is that rational and reasonable when the majority of people they know and live near don’t feel that need?

Again - a first aid kit is not a weapon specifically designed to kill. There is no tangible risk to the general public if a first aid kit fell into the hands of a criminal or irresponsible person.

Again – why are they so far more afraid of been attacked than the majority of Americans that feel they don’t need a gun?

I mean does there request pass the ‘good reason’ criteria that would have to be passed within the EU for example?

And again - as I’ve said before given that this seems to be a consumerist choice (not a need) then why shouldn’t’ they have to take the responsibility for protecting others from their choice.

 

Mac

And what if the dentist or accountant - like 50% of gun owners and because there is no regulation asking for it - make no effort to secure or lock up their guns is it rational and reasonable for society to allow that, given the danger to the public good?

More than half of gun owners do not safely store all their guns… The survey, believed to be the first nationally representative sample in 15 years to examine gun storage practices in U.S. households, found that 54 percent of gun owners reported not storing all their guns safely. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

What do you base your scepticism on?

 

What makes you think most guns used by european criminals come from the US?