Gun Control needs to be instituted

how can someone who wants to ban AR 15s-allegedly to save lives-NOT ALSO want to ban handguns which are used in 75X more killings than AR 15s?

 

Based on the research, that's a significant reason the US leads its developed peers in gun violence. A 2016 review of 130 studies in 10 countries, published in Epidemiologic Reviews, found that new legal restrictions on owning and purchasing guns tended to be followed by a drop in gun violence. That's a strong indicator that restricting access to guns can save lives.

Some types of guns are also restricted. Under federal law, fully automatic weapons are technically legal only if made before 1986, so it's illegal to manufacture new automatic weapons for civilian use. Automatic weapons also tend to have more restrictions and registration requirements than other guns. Meanwhile, semiautomatic and non-automatic firearms are generally legal, barring state laws. And some states also ban high-capacity ammunition magazines.

The most well-known way to bypass background checks is the private sales loophole: If someone purchases a gun from a private seller, such as a friend or family member, no gun background check is required. This is often mischaracterized as the gun show sale loophole, under the assumption that people can simply go to a gun show and buy a gun without getting a background check. But licensed dealers at gun shows still have to carry out a background check. The actual loophole is that someone can meet with a private seller at a gun show — or, increasingly, over the internet — and buy a firearm from that person without a background check. In other words, the gun show doesn't create a loophole; the private seller does.

I am totally sick and tired of you mentioning the word "freedom", when it comes to gun control. Controlling the use of guns is not taking freedom away from anyone. Show me what difference there is in the word freedom when it comes to have the freedom to buy a gun or having the freedom to buy as many as you want and as lethal as you want? Everything in life has guidelines to be followed. For example, there are laws that prevent people from buying certain medicines/drugs unless they are prescribed for YOU by a doctor. You cannot go to a pharmacy and buy whatever you want just because you want it. Does that mean that our "freedom" has been taken away?

Buying guns should be like everything else that has deadly capabilities and that is the ones that buy them have to have/show a need for it. Show me where anyone has a need for having a fully automatic or partially automatic weapon?

As far as comparisons between nations, there are big differences between nations. Some nations are not Democratic. Some nations have tyrants, autocrats and communistic governments. In those nations there is a NEED to have as many weapons and any kind of weapons because the people have no other recourse for their own defense. Here, none of that exists. As such, you cannot compare the gun problems there (El Salvador, Guatemala, Venezuela, African nations, etc) with what we have here. This means that compared to other nations where Democracy exists and is the rule of the nation, we have A PROBLEM WITH GUNS!

You cannot get away from the data. Here is a chart you cannot dismiss no matter how much you try.



This chart shows we have 4 times more gun homicides that the 2nd country on the list. You do not consider that a problem?

Even when not comparing the U.S. to any other country, just comparing the U.S. to the U.S. over the past 12 years, this chart will show you that WE HAVE A PROBLEM



The solution is to limit the amount of firearms. It does not mean "get rid of them", it means limiting them! No freedom being taken away is involved with that.

 

All I can say in response to your post is that the problem we have in the U.S. is not found anywhere else in the quantity found here. Mental Health? Other countries have much more reasons than we do for having bad mental health but for some reason we have the worst mental health in the world?

Too costly and troublesome is something you need to discuss with Congress. It is they, that have been making the decisions. Nonetheless, for the greatness of the problem we have here, the kind of mental health solutions that can be made available won't even begin to scratch the surface. It seems we need to have a mental health expert be available in every corner of every street of every city in the U.S. The cost, organization, and ability to accomplish that is beyond the means of any nation to accomplish.

Coming up with ideas for solutions to the problem have to be based on doable scenarios. This is not a doable scenario.

Limiting the amount of guns, the type of guns, and who they are sold to is a DOABLE solution as there are at least 8 other countries with less resources than we have that have done exactly that.

That is a solution that will IMMEDIATELY reduce the problem. At that point in time (with lesser numbers), trying to address the problem at the core (mental health) will be more doable. At the rate we are going with gun deaths, soon the problem will get beyond ANY solutions. In the process, it is likely that someone that you love and care about will be killed unnecessarily under the guise of "we have no problem with guns in the U.S.).

 

No. Its a pot hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Statement of ignorance.
Only legal if registered prior to May 1986.
A firearm manufactured before 5-86 but not registered before 5-86 cannot be legally registered.

Statement of ignorance or dishonesty - it is impossible to avoid the background checks mandated by law - as such, there is no loophole in the law.

Restrictions which infringe on the right to keep and bear arms takes freedom from those who would exercise said right.

If you have to demonstrate to the state you have a need to exercise a right as a condition of that exercise, you do not have that right.

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.

if you cannot vote because the limitted number of people have already voted, you freedom to vote has been taken away.
Replace "vote" with "guns".

 

it is not a loophole because congress had neither the votes nor the constitutional authority to make private sellers-sellers who are limited INTRASTATE selling only, conduct such checks. To call it a loophole is as stupid as saying moms who carpool their kids have a CDL loophole

 

I don't think that I can comment more without knowing more about what you are proposing and how doable your idea to reduce America's homicides really is.

Additionally, why do you think that Americans are incapable of upgrading America's mental health care system?
Have you had any experience in the field?

 

1) It has been proven that less guns in the hands of private citizens automatically lower the amount of homicides. It does not solve the problem but it reduces it. We have to reduce it for two reasons. a) we have too many deaths (compared to other nations of our ilk) to allow this to continue the way it is being seen now and b) the problem is so big that getting the amount of mental health experts to tackle it, is beyond the means or the desire of Congress to accomplish it. In addition, mental health is not something that can be solved in a short-period of time. It takes years and years of working on it to even get "some" results and then the reality is that you not only have to deal with the people having mental problems but deal with the people that are causing the mental problems to start with (Trump for example).

As far as limiting gun purchases, that is more simple and doable. You prevent people that have shown some actions (that have in some way been documented through doctors, police, and/or social media) that are hate filled and that are violent in nature, from buying any kind of a gun. You totally stop the ability of anyone that doesn't show a valid reason to buy guns that have the ability to klll a mass amount of people in a short period of time. You increase the penalty for using a gun when there is no valid reason to use a gun in the first place.

It really is a simple as that. It is not going to solve the root issue but it will decrease the amount of gun deaths and that will have a domino effect.

 

Re:

No, it has not been proven that fewer guns in the hands of private citizens automatically lower the amount of homicides unless you deliberately omit the 60+ countries that prohibit all private gun ownership and still have a higher homicide rates than the US.

That's how gun control advocates try to peddle their unConstitutional gun ban schemes by omitting inconvenient facts.

Re:

You've repeatedly listed the numerous ways in which upgrading America' Mental Health System costs too much, takes too much time and is impractical while you seem to have absolutely no experience in the field.

Therefore, your excuses for avoiding measures that have worked in "developed" countries are simply unfounded opinions.

Re:

We've tried " limiting gun purchases" for about 100 years and now you want more bureaucratic gun limitations because the existing ones don't work.

I think that I already mentioned that doing the same failed thing over and over and then expecting different results is just one definition of insanity.
When the new restrictions you proposed don't work, you'll want even more unconstitutional restrictions until you've eviscerated the 2nd Amendment completely.

 

This is not an easy issue to fix but the one thing that can be done is sell less guns and not sell to those that should not own them and in the quantity they want. It will reduce the problem to what it is worldwide. We need to stop being #1 in the world (among our peers) in gun deaths.

 

That is incorrect. No lives are saved. Murder victims are just as dead when they are killed with a different kind of weapon instead of being killed with a gun.

If this is supposed to be evidence that laws regarding assault weapons are not being enforced, nothing in that paragraph applies to assault weapons or to the laws that govern assault weapons.

So long as you keep making proposals that will abolish freedom, people who value freedom will keep opposing you.

It is if that control violates the right to keep and bear arms.

Under the Heller ruling, people have the right to have any weapon that there is no justification for prohibiting.

Under the Heller ruling, people also have the right to enough firepower for effective self defense.

It does if those guidelines violate the core tenets of freedom.

Nope. We are not serfs. Americans are free people.

We will buy any weapon that we choose to buy, and will not bother to justify our decisions to anyone.

This alleged requirement about "showing a need" does not apply to other deadly items either. Since when did anyone have to demonstrate a need before being allowed to buy a car?

No. It is nobody's business what weapons free people choose to buy.

That there is a problem here is your personal opinion.

I do not share this opinion.

Correct. My opinion is that there is no problem.

I do not share that opinion.

That is incorrect. Your proposal will abolish freedom.

What makes you think we are somehow worse?

I doubt that that is the case.

You're the one who objects to these events where embittered people lash out at the world. Shouldn't it be you who starts talking to Congress about it?.

If you don't want to try to curtail these events where embittered people keep lashing out at the world, then you should be prepared for them to keep happening.

That is doubly wrong. First, abolishing freedom is not a solution. It will not prevent embittered people from lashing out at the world.

Second, it is not doable. The American people will not allow our freedom to be abolished.

That is incorrect. Abolishing freedom will do nothing to solve any problem.

Abolishing freedom will not make it any easier for the nation to deal with mental health issues.

No it hasn't.

It has been proven that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

It reduces nothing.

And remember that not everyone agrees with your opinion that there is a problem.

Abolishing our freedom will not reduce any deaths.

Not beyond the means. Merely beyond the desire.

Well if you want embittered people to stop lashing out at society, you had best get started on helping them out.

Progressives are hate-filled. Shall we stop all progressives from buying guns?

Free people don't give reasons for buying guns. If they choose to buy a gun, they do so.

Are you aware of the existing penalties for murder?

Not much of an effect. People will be just as dead if they are murdered with a different kind of weapon instead of with a gun.

Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, so what?

Having people be murdered with other kinds of weapons instead of with guns will not save a single life.

Fake news.

Statistics are quite clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

Except it would not reduces deaths in the slightest.

Having murder victims be killed with different kinds of weapons instead of with guns will not save a single life.

Abolishing freedom will do nothing to solve any alleged problem.

And yes, your proposal amounts to abolishing freedom.

I don't see how it matters what sort of weapon murderers use. Their victims still end up dead no matter what kind of weapon is used to kill them.

 

The entire argument you are dealing with boils down to the attitude that laws that harass honest citizens is a useful weapon for progressives, communists, socialists, collectivists and Democrats to use against people who don't buy into liberal agendas. That is the only thing that makes sense. The minute you see an argument that "we must ban assault weapons to stop murder" that is not accompanied by a demand to ban handguns, or knives, you know that the stated motivation is clearly a lie.

 

It is clearly evident that you and I have totally opposing views and opinions on the gun problem. It is also clearly evident you are not willing to budge "one inch" from your position on this. I am willing to "budge" as everything in life is based on compromise between the two opposing views. In order to get anything positive to all, we both have to agree on what the problem is and on a course of action that will accomplish something for both of us. Simply stated, you are a clear example of what is happening these days between the Republicans and Democrats..........a total unwillingness to compromise by the Republicans.

As such, the only thing that can be done is to part ways and agree to disagree.

Good bye.

 

2A fundamentalists, such as yourself, do not care how easy access to guns affects and degrades society. It is an egocentric need not to be inconvenienced in any way and the rest of society can go to hell. The rest is so much rationalizing.

BTW Swiss militia are given weapons but not ammo. Recreational shooting is available but you buy the ammo at the range.

 

Told ya, that you were banging your head against a hardened ideology that sees reason as a foreign land.

 

Your statement is false, and you knew it was false when you made it.

We, the "2A fundamentalists", believe the enshrinement of constitutional rights, intentionally and necessarily, takes certain policy choices off the table.
You do too, but only when you approve of the right in question.

 

I'm definitely all for politeness when disagreeing.

But I think I achieve something positive for everyone when I steadfastly refuse to let freedom be abolished.

I'm not so sure that it is the Republicans who refuse to compromise (although they certainly will never go along with abolishing freedom). If the left wasn't so hellbent on abolishing freedom, there might be a stronger background check system and even safe storage laws enacted by now.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And rightly so.

But it is worth noting that easy access to guns does no actual harm to society.

We would still insist on having our guns even if doing so caused a problem, but that is all hypothetical since doing so doesn't cause any problems.

Note that I do not agree that it is a problem when murderers use guns as opposed to some other kind of weapon. I see murders as being equally bad no matter which kind of weapon is used.

I concur.

I agree that Swiss target shooters buy their ammo at the shooting ranges where they do their target shooting.

I think Swiss hunters buy their ammo elsewhere however. Probably at stores that cater to hunters and sell hunting weapons.

It never fails that people who oppose civil liberties will always invoke some variation of the term "reason".

 

Would go go as far as disarming armored car guards?

 

First, I'd like to thank you for your civility. I believe that it is fully possible to hold differing opinions and express them without sarcasm, insults or snarky quips. After all, discussing important issues with people from around the world is certainly informative and supposed to be fun.

Anyway, I believe we agree that the severely mentally ill, malevolent and criminal element should not have access to deadly objects (i.e. guns) or substances.

Unfortunately, a determined killer will always find a way to kill either one person or many people if that is his objective.
As the two examples I gave earlier showed, (The Happy Land Fire and the 1927 school bombing) a determined killer who can't find a gun, he will simply resort to using another weapon or a crude but deadlier WMD.

People have figured out ways to kill each other long before firearms were invented and they'll be killing each other long after firearms are replaced by a deadlier weapon.

The solution to both suicides and homicides, then, is to detect and treat killers since there are innumerable ways to kill.

Guns, crude WMDs, knives, autos, baseball bats and other weapons or potential weapons will always be readily available and attempting to control human behavior by manipulating inanimate objects has always failed.

As I already pointed out, Russia, Argentina Peru and the Philippines all have the gun laws you are proposing but they and 60+ other countries also have higher homicide rates than the US.

The primary reason that the countries you consider "among our peers" have lower homicide rates is because they have far superior mental health systems, not stricter gun laws.

I disagree with the opinion that America is the only country in the "developed" world that cannot establish a functioning mental health system. If you really consider America to be a "developed" country, you have to admit that it is capable of upgrading its mental health system to that of its "peers".

So, which is it?
Is America a "developed" country or not?

Thanks,

 

First of all, the reality is that s that humans will always be humans, meaning that the problems of humans killing other humans will always happen. The idea is not to find solution but to ameliorate the problem the max possible. Guns kill people a lot easier and faster than anything else, so limiting gun usage will lower the amount of deaths automatically

me tal health issues do exist but the biggest problem is hate, racism, lack of caring for others and plain Stupidity, and that is not going to be solved by a mental health specialist!

the answer to your question is “no” the U.S. is not a developed country. Brains are needed for that to happen and our brain power is decreasing day by day

 

That is incorrect. Statistics are quite clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

 

Whatever you say!

 

Facts are important.

Americans would still insist on our freedom even if increased gun availability did result in more homicides. But the fact that it doesn't is an important point.

 

That is incorrect. After 1977 the NRA has been defending the civil liberties of the general public.

Thinking is doing just fine. We just aren't going to allow the left to abolish freedom.

It will never be possible to stop spontaneous acts.

 

You say "facts are important" but the reality is that you are the first one that throws facts away when they disagree with your opinion.

Here is a perfect example of what you are doing. I put this study by Harvard Injury Control Center:

Harvard Injury Control Research Center
1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

what was your reply? You stated Fake News"

Nonetheless, you did not supply any "contrary" study to refute the study or prove it was fake news.

By you doing that, you are showing that the ONLY FACTS you accept are the ones that support your opinion. A such, your statement about "facts are important" is pure BS as facts are not important to you. Your opinion is the only thing you are basing your ideas on.