If guns were banned in the US......

We should also be discussing the USA's problem with obesity! Good point! Doesn't mean we can't have a discussion on gun violence.

As someone who's not from the US, I can only talk about this hypothetical situation in ridiculous Hollywood terms. Gun owners would riot, start killing cops and the entirety of the US would be sent into disarray. The government would lose all its credibility and people would try to build their own little commmunities of likeminded people, trying to go back to that romanticized illusion of a carefree US based on rural and communal principles.

Seriously, guns seem ingrained in US society. Other than a means to defend oneself, it also seems to be an essential symbol of freedom, ultimate proof of being able to handle oneself in the toughest of situations.

However, I'm curious to know if people would actually feel less safe if they didn't have a gun. If that is indeed the case, I'd work on making people feel safer, so that they don't feel the need to own a gun, instead of first taking away the thing that makes them feel safer. I mean, I feel absolutely no need to own a gun. I feel safe in my house and my neighbourhood. But I don't live over there, I don't know what it's like.

But the focus of overweight problem should be on banning sugar and fatty food?

America doesn't have a gun violence problem as much as it is a violence problem. If you want to compare US to EU, then all violent crimes are higher not just gun violence.

not banning, but perhaps regulating? Restrict the amount of sugars and fats that enter in people's diets and foods. Give fats and sugars to an acceptable extent, without making it the norm nation-wide for all products.

Make guns available to those who genuinely need them for protection, to an acceptable extent, without making guns such a normal thing nation-wide. I don't advocate banning guns.

You want to talk about a policy that's nearly impossible to enforce? Regulating people sugar and fat intake would be it. I think the more effective approach would be to make healthy eating more accessible, not make bad diet more prohibitive.

Who better to make the determination of whether someone is "genuinely" in need of protection than the individuals themselves? And if you make that a responsibility of the government then wouldn't the logical assumption is the same entity should be held accountable if they denied someone access to protection and that person falls victim to a crime?

@bmanva: Surely you see the fallacy in that argument, right? I don't really have a horse in the firearm regulation race (for a dozen reasons or so), but even as a general debate device the viewpoint has no merit.

Let's illustrate why by using it in some other scenarios in which you may not be the possessor of the cake:

Right now the right to an abortion is constitutionally protected up to the second trimester. Does that make discussion/debate on abortion not worthwhile because one side may have to give up a portion of their remaining two thirds of that cake? How about free trade? Should the fact that it pushes wages down for American workers mean that new free trade agreements should not be discussed? Part of laborers remaining cake will be taken from them in that scenario. How about allowing for oil exports? That will cause US gas prices to rise, thereby taking some cake from them. Should that make that debate/discussion a non-starter?

What you're missing in that argument is that it isn't even about compromise. It's about recognizing a problem, finding the possible solutions, identifying their pros and cons, identifying which of those have pros which outweigh the cons, and then choosing the best solution that remains (abbreviated problem solving in a complex environment). You can argue that their is no problem (in which case any action would be a nonstarter). You can argue that there is no solution in which the pros outweigh the cons (in which any action would be a nonstarter). And you can argue about which solution is best (this is where compromise would come in if agreement couldn't be met). But the mere fact that you don't want to compromise isn't a valid reason to stare at a problem, recognize that it's a problem, and refuse to engage.

Now, I'm sure you have better reasons for your stances, so state those instead.

murder rates would go down...

This old argument, bombs are illegal and I don't see people "Mad-Max"ing their cars to make them more deadly. Why keep something around that makes it easier to kill people, that are made just for that purpose. Idiotic beyond all measure.

If guns were banned, the right wing would go apeshit, and the anti-government revolution would start, and 2nd amendment right wing nutjobs will probably start it by shooting up a black church.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xryp7g_nga-promo-video_shortfilms

"guns don't kill people 'dangerous minorities do'. "

I think it's sad that this happens but guns and americans go hand in hand as you can see from previous posters.

To us europeans it's crystal clear that gun control does work, in europe

that doesn't mean it would work in the usa.

Well
When you're still using the imperial system as well...

@bmanva said:

@chaoscougar1 said:

@Maroxad said:

There is no evidence of gun control working.

Banning guns now could be especially problematic as well.

None whatsoever...

Yep, none.

Correlation =/= Causation
To repeat

Ifind this discution fascinating as I'm from Canada and guns are illegal outside of hunting zone. To me it is obvious that if you can't put your hand on a gun, you won't be able to mass murder or just kill so easily. Killing by strangling or with a knife is as easy as pulling the trigger.

We don't have that many crime or murder with guns up here because of that and the police know that if it was with an handgun it is an illegal weapon.

That would just encourage the black market.

@thegerg: If it's for the purpose of one's own protection, I'd argue it is.

@thegerg: That is a guideline for police officers. Granted, the less lethal alternative would stop a threat all the same.

And you are missing the point. It's not so much an argument for or against gun control as it's a summary of history of gun control. It illustrates a gradual erosion of what supposed to be a constitutionally protected right and in direct contrast of the narrative of some gun control advocates that the total abolition of private arms ownership isn't the ultimate objective. No one is denying there's a problem (whether such mass shooting, which constitute as a tiny faction of violent crime should be a priority given all the other issues America is facing today is another matter entirely) or trying to shut down the discussion for a potential solution. But what I don't agree on is some people framing the conversation with foregone conclusion of what the root cause (current gun policy) and the solution (stricter gun control) is. Once we start down that road, the only thing we would be negotiating is which segment of 2nd amendment gun owners are willing to sacrificed. That's been the pattern ever since the 30s when the issue of gun control was brought up to address the increase in gun violence caused by government's attempt to regulate something else. When crime and violence declined due to repeal of prohibition, it was attributed (erroneously IMO) to the NFA of 38. Not even the slightest consideration was given as to whether it was necessary. Same thing happened in 68, after Kennedy assassination.

I wouldn't mind discussing with a rational approach, but when the topic is social issues it gets infinitely more complicated than a pros and cons list which is more appropriate for deciding which car you should purchase than national policy that affect some 300 million individuals each with their unique situation.

@chaoscougar1 said:

@bmanva said:

@chaoscougar1 said:

@Maroxad said:

There is no evidence of gun control working.

Banning guns now could be especially problematic as well.

None whatsoever...

Yep, none.

Correlation =/= Causation

To repeat

@chaoscougar1 said:

Nothing like solving a problem by failing to admit there is one

The correct phrase is correlation doesn't IMPLY causation. That's not the same as saying correlation <> causation or correlation is NOT causation. But you were essentially guilty of the same assumption with your initial graph.

I'm Canadian and not a gun owner and I think the idea of stricter gun regulation is a bunch of hooey.

Criminals don't buy legal guns to commit crimes with.

@thegerg: We're talking about fucking civilians defending themselves here. You are disregarding so many variables. Militaries exercise lethal and less lethal capabilities for specific situations which call for them.

Ironic because black population commit disproportionately greater percentage of gun violence than "2nd amendment right wing nutjobs". You simply don't hear about it because it doesn't fit into your narrative.

The US government subsidizes corn for the production of high fructose corn syrup. The problem isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Healthy food is more expensive than most low-income families can afford.

This.

In 2010, there were 6 million NICS (basically background check for gun purchase) applications, of which 72,659 were rejected (1.2%). And of the 72,659 only 62 were prosecuted and only 13 were convicted (sauce). This means only 0.0002% of all NICS applicants actually have criminal intent. There were 1.3 million violent crimes in 2010 (sauce), Brady Act stopped 0.001% of them, maybe. We might have a better chance of stopping terrorism by rounding up all Muslims males of certain ages. Before you have a heart attack, I'm not advocating for ethnic profiling as an actual approach to anti-terrorism, only highlighting the ridiculous notion of treating everyone in a group as a criminal just because of few insane individuals.

@thegerg: @thegerg: Except Militaries are trained to do so. Civilians are not. Militaries have to worry about defusing a situation before civilians get hurt. Other civilians do NOT. We are specifically talking about civilians defending themselves.

I don't need training. The effects of less lethal weapons are all documented.

As a combat veteran, I can validate what gerg is saying. We don't really get issue nor train with less than lethal weapons. I mean there's the usual escalation of force but we don't equip ourselves for specific non-lethal encounters. Surest way to neutralize a threat is two to the center mass and one to the head with issued and lethal weapon.

Maybe SFs/MPs do, I wouldn't know. If airshocker was still around he could answer, he was former SF.

actually in each of these mass shootings, it seems like the guns were obtained legally.

Actually the UK and Wales have many times the violent crime rate as the U.S.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_final

2013 is the most recent I could find.

Also keep in mind that according to the FBI link, the mere threat of force constitutes a violent crime.

@thegerg: "What "records of gun ownership" are you talking about, exactly?"

Isn't there aome kind of register that gun owners details go on once they have been approved to purchase a gun?

@Stevo_the_gamer:

"Luckily, such a notion will never happen - it's a pipe dream. My guns aren't going anywhere."

Its not a pipe dream beacause its not something i wish for.

If you could just answer what you would do if ever it was the case that would be good.

What lengths would you go to to keep your guns?

Would the government be paying fair market value (buy back program)?

Yikes, the brain washed republicans ITT are scary.

Researchers from Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health studied information from all 50 states between 2007 to 2010, analyzing all firearm-related deaths reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and data on firearm laws compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Here is their conclusion: States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found. The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower.

ITT:

- Non-Americans telling Americans to give away guns (A pipe dream)

- Not giving actual solutions to said issue outside of fantasy laws that can't/won't happen

Did I win?

last time there was a buyback program near me, a single person showed up. An old woman gave away her STG 44. I hope the police didnt melt it down, because that shit belongs in a museum

That, corn syrup. I couldn't remember the name of that thing. Yeah that's really unfortunate, and it's a readily available solution to obesity in the US.

Well I meant would the government be compensating people in this hypothetical situation where everyone was legally obliged to give up their guns, or just taking people's property with nothing in return.

How was the overall homicide and suicide rate affected?

I was actually speaking to the broader context of gun violence, to which these mass shooting is only a tiny subset of. To put things into perspective, so far this year, more people have died of flu than in mass shootings. No, the larger problem when you want to talk about gun violence is drug related homicide which most likely are committed with illegal guns.

Even if the context is mass shootings, then I don't see how the gun law changes (like universal background check) most gun control advocates are proposing would reduce mass shooting, like you mentioned most of these cases, shooters got their weapons legally.

Touche, however, that article was fairly vague as to the kind of gun violence posted there. Gang related, police shootings, drug-related, etc?

I am mainly an observer of these "debates" about gun control, but again, I still think many of these crimes have more to do, normally speaking, with poverty, gangs, and police brutality. These supposed mass shootings are less frequent than the aforementioned three.

Stricter gun control is going to happen, people will eventually become fed up of their kids dying in mass school shootings. They should just have shooting ranges and stuff store the guns, you're not allowed to take them off the premises, then designated hunting areas where they do the same etc etc. There is no reason why people should own hand guns or fully automatic weapons at all. Here in the UK we only have things like Shotguns for Clay Pigeon Shooting and the laws are strict around them, plug they have to be locked up at all times with inspections.

If you wanna go play with guns as part of your daily life, join the Army.

No, and that's a good thing.

Maybe they shouldn't be able to get guns period.