Gun Control?

[Flapjack]

So this issue has come up in a few other debates and I thought it would be nice to have a thread just for debating this topic!

Do you believe in gun control? If so, what kind of gun control?

I personally believe all guns should be banned! I don't ever think police should have them, apart for SWAT/Armed Police teams that deal with gun threats.

I do believe you should be able to own stuff like peper spray for self defence, as long as they're a adult with no criminal past etc etc as some countries that have outlawed guns, have also outlawed stuff like pepper spray.

O0f_nFKVoyQ
v8qa5Wk_f7U
cX5CPx4RKWw
J9TFvh6Xps4

[Just JT]

I have no problem with gun control, as an over all concept. However, there need to be limitations to that control, just as there is limitations to who is eligible to own a gun.

I've grown up around guns, held, loaded, shot, and taken care of guns responsibly. I will become a responsible legal gun owner at the required age to do so, if I quality and pass the background checks in place at that time.

The question you raise seems to also include the banning of all guns. So gun control, and banning guns, really don't go in the same conversation really. Because of you win a debate of banning them, then controlling them is a non issue.

Banning them? Hello no!! There are so many guns out there, you'll never get them off the streets. And I want some for my own protection and "all lawful purposes". In ingrained into our constitution as a right. Something many people may not understand, and I'm sorry about that. It's simply a difference of culture when it comes down to it.

That's my opinion anyways, I'll probably get shot for expressing it lol!!

[Judean Zealot]

What use are unarmed police?

[Just JT]

I agree. Im pretty sure I know your position of guns in general, (maybe I'm wrong) but yeah, there will always be guns, illegal guns, and police can't fight guns with slingshots lol!!

[Flapjack]

What use are unarmed police?

Believe it or not... a policemans job isn't shooting people!!XD The police in Britian don't have guns:)

[Judean Zealot]

I agree. Im pretty sure I know your position of guns in general, (maybe I'm wrong) but yeah, there will always be guns, illegal guns, and police can't fight guns with slingshots lol!!

I'm actually for gun control, ideally even repealing the second amendment, but to withhold firearms from law-enforcement, especially when there are so many guns already in circulation, is ridiculous.
TheFlapjack

And police in Britain are helpless when someone gets dismembered in the street with a butcher's cleaver

[Just JT]

Believe it or not... a policemans job isn't shooting people!!XD The police in Britian don't have guns:)

That's correct, but in other countries, citizens have guns. And the police job, is to enforce the law, oops the peace, and protect the citizens. So without guns, fighting a population that's armed, how do you think that'll work out?

[Flapjack]

That's correct, but in other countries, citizens have guns. And the police job, is to enforce the law, oops the peace, and protect the citizens. So without guns, fighting a population that's armed, how do you think that'll work out?

Badly! But every cop on the beat having guns is also a bad idea! How many innocent people must the police in the USA murder before this gets realised?? There is no reason for a citezen to own a gun.

[Judean Zealot]

Badly! But every cop on the beat having guns is also a bad idea! How many innocent people must the police in the USA murder before this gets realised?? There is no reason for a citezen to own a gun.

They're generally not innocent. They're either shot with good cause or the cops are prosecuted.

[StoppingTom]

I'm at a weird crossroads, I don't think one should basically go against/repeal one of the original Amendments, but at the same time, the volume and severity of mass shootings freaks me out, and something needs to be done to prevent it.

[Flapjack]

I'm at a weird crossroads, I don't think one should basically go against/repeal one of the original Amendments, but at the same time, the volume and severity of mass shootings freaks me out, and something needs to be done to prevent it.

But you know in the constitution it guarantees the right to bare arms if you're in a well regulated miliitia, which in today speak means the policeforce or the army. Also slavery was one of the original amendents!

It is a tough one though, esspecially with how many guns are out there and with the NRA.

They're generally not innocent. They're either shot with good cause or the cops are prosecuted.

True, they might have stolen something or whatever... that is not a reason to kill thim.

Also you have so many cases of cops shooting innocent black people for no reason.

[Judean Zealot]

Also slavery was one of the original amendents!

No it wasn't.

True, they might have stolen something or whatever... that is not a reason to kill thim.


No, I'm referring to where the cops are reasonably threatened.

Also you have so many cases of cops shooting innocent black people for no reason.

"For no reason". Ehh, not quite. In the the majority of cases the cop is exonerated.

[StoppingTom]

But you know in the constitution it guarantees the right to bare arms if you're in a well regulated miliitia, which in today speak means the policeforce or the army. Also slavery was one of the original amendents!

It is a tough one though, esspecially with how many guns are out there and with the NRA.



True, they might have stolen something or whatever... that is not a reason to kill thim.

Also you have so many cases of cops shooting innocent black people for no reason.

And in the historical context of which the Constitution was drafted, a militia referred to every able bodied person. Also, slavery was never a Constitutional right. The phrasing meant that rights were not extended towards non-landowning men, women, and slaves, but no where did it explicitly say "It is your right to have slaves".

[Flapjack]

And in the historical context of which the Constitution was drafted, a militia referred to every able bodied person. Also, slavery was never a Constitutional right. The phrasing meant that rights were not extended towards non-landowning men, women, and slaves, but no where did it explicitly say "It is your right to have slaves".

I get it thanks for clearing things up buddy:) I read somewhere about the militia thing but that somewhere was a veryyyy pro gun control youtuber so I'll take your word for itXD I am not American so never studied your constitution, again thanks!:)

[Microcosm]

If you repealed the second amendment and ordered the confiscation of most or all guns held by citizens, you would almost undoubtedly have a civil war at least on a small scale. You'd be surprised how many gun-owning citizens would be willing to die for what they believe is their right to bear arms. I'd rather avoid large-scale violent conflict, perhaps civil war, than repeal the second amendment and save a few lives. This is because I believe more lives would be lost if the amendment was repealed.

In the U.S., gun control in which mass confiscations are to take place for this reason and others is almost impossible to effectively implement. As has been mentioned, disarming officers in the states will allow criminals to have their hayday, which is obviously no good. It seems that if the states plan on keeping their guns, regulations to ensure people's safety have to be made and enforced, aka more trained officers in more public areas, less guns that are designed specifically for killing, extending the right to carry to teachers on school grounds who have been trained to use a gun in case of emergency, etc.

I would prefer if all guns held by civilians were automatically given to government authority and citizens were trained to defend themselves with hand-to-hand combat; however, U.S. gun culture makes such a policy impossible to carry out without revolts and mass conflict.

[Flapjack]

If you repealed the second amendment and ordered the confiscation of most or all guns held by citizens, you would almost undoubtedly have a civil war at least on a small scale. You'd be surprised how many gun-owning citizens would be willing to die for what they believe is their right to bear arms. I'd rather avoid large-scale violent conflict, perhaps civil war, than repeal the second amendment and save a few lives. This is because I believe more lives would be lost if the amendment was repealed.


That is crazy, we shouldn't protect innocent people because by doing so, armed men trying a rebellion might die?

Something I never got about gun owners who like keeping guns to keep the goverment in check is the fact that they always overlook how the USA has the world's most powerful and well funded military in the history of the world. No one sain will try anything. A few nut jobs might, but they're probably the same people that shot up abortion clinics.

If you repealed the second amendment and ordered the confiscation of most or all guns held by citizens, you would almost undoubtedly have a civil war at least on a small scale. You'd be surprised how many gun-owning citizens would be willing to die for what they believe is their right to bear arms. I'd rather avoid large-scale violent conflict, perhaps civil war, than repeal the second amendment and save a few lives. This is because I believe more lives would be lost if the amendment was repealed.

In the U.S., gun control in which mass confiscations are to take place for this reason and others is almost impossible to effectively implement. As has been mentioned, disarming officers in the states will allow criminals to have their hayday, which is obviously no good. It seems that if the states plan on keeping their guns, regulations to ensure people's safety have to be made and enforced, aka more trained officers in more public areas, less guns that are designed specifically for killing, extending the right to carry to teachers on school grounds who have been trained to use a gun in case of emergency, etc.

Forget disarming officers buddy, it will be 200 years at least before the USA could get there!

I think in the USA the first thing should be limits on the kinds of guns people can buy and btw as far as I know, 99% of guns are designed for killing. Stuff like armor piercing rounds and 200 round mags should be common sense.


I would prefer if all guns held by civilians were automatically given to government authority and citizens were trained to defend themselves with hand-to-hand combat; however, U.S. gun culture makes such a policy impossible to carry out without revolts and mass conflict.
I think pepper spray would replace the need for everyone to be ninjas:') but I get your point and tbh I doubt there will be a revolt. Many say they will but I doubt they actually will. Look at the twats that taken ovet that federal building. They claimed they would die for their cause and shot the cops. How many died for their cause? None. How many shot cops? None.

[Porpoise101]

They're generally not innocent. They're either shot with good cause or the cops are prosecuted.
Well here is the thing. Cops have to get indicted first, and that does not happen as often as it maybe should. This isn't a problem because of the guns, but more with the current justice system.

[Flapjack]

Well here is the thing. Cops have to get indicted first, and that does not happen as often as it maybe should. This isn't a problem because of the guns, but more with the current justice system.

I was going to explain that and give examples of how obvious cases couldn't get indiced but couldn't be askedXD

[Vlerchan]

What use are unarmed police?
Ireland has unarmed police - for historical reasons.

It has probably contributed greatly to generally positive, respectful, and co-operative attitude towards our police, which makes their job in reprimanding actual criminals significantly easier.

For armed-crime, which is rare, there are armed police-units.

I'm not sure this would operate as smoothly outside our culture though, and it's notable that gun-prevalence is pretty minimised here.

[sqishy]

It looks to be that this topic finds itself within a new thread every few months or so, so my motivation to repeat myself is low. That said, I find myself to have my descriptions of ideas to change, so I might get into this again with a newer argument or two (but which won't be today).

Ireland has unarmed police - for historical reasons.

It has probably contributed greatly to generally positive, respectful, and co-operative attitude towards our police, which makes their job in reprimanding actual criminals significantly easier.

For armed-crime, which is rare, there are armed police-units.

I'm not sure this would operate as smoothly outside our culture though, and it's notable that gun-prevalence is pretty minimised here.

What is your stance on recent increased interest in arming the force here?

[phuckphace]

Paraxiom has a crate of AK-47s and grenades in his closet with a gift-note reading "Tiocfaidh ár lá" signed "Gaddafi". don't let his seemly-progressive demeanor fool you - break into his home-dwelling and you're a dead cunt.

----

I agree that this topic is overdone and 2bh it's getting boring. I'm all for restricting freedoms but given the usefulness of firearms as effective self-defense I don't see any reason to go after gun owners unless they're being used to commit violent crimes.

[Vlerchan]

What is your stance on recent increased interest in arming the force here?
Unnecessary given the relatively small amount of armed-crime that persists in Ireland.

[Judean Zealot]

Vlerchan

I'm operating based on the US and Israel - disarming law-enforcement would be just about the dumbest thing one can do.

[phuckphace]

a cop without a gun is like a computer without a keyboard, or a car without mirrors. once you're past the point of disarming them you might as well just replace law enforcement with an automated bicycle horn that honks when you do something naughty.

if I were visiting the UK and intent on doing something illegal I'd feel a lot more comfortable knowing I could run away from any officer trying to apprehend me. the inverse is why I'm painfully polite to American cops, knowing they can easily FMSU if I give them a reason to.

[Flapjack]

a cop without a gun is like a computer without a keyboard, or a car without mirrors. once you're past the point of disarming them you might as well just replace law enforcement with an automated bicycle horn that honks when you do something naughty.

if I were visiting the UK and intent on doing something illegal I'd feel a lot more comfortable knowing I could run away from any officer trying to apprehend me. the inverse is why I'm painfully polite to American cops, knowing they can easily FMSU if I give them a reason to.
Police shouldn't be shoting people for running away....
Please watch this video
O0f_nFKVoyQ

[phuckphace]

>The Young Turks

how about no

[Flapjack]

>The Young Turks

how about no
How about you watch the video comparison?

You can't dispute the facts so you dispute the source. All TYT done was put the clips together and talk about them.

[Judean Zealot]

And all the painter did was spill the preexisting paint on the canvas - the painting is nothing of his at all, right?

[Flapjack]

And all the painter did was spill the preexisting paint on the canvas - the painting is nothing of his at all, right?
You lost meXD

[phuckphace]

You can't dispute the facts so you dispute the source.

Tumblr pls. using TYT as a source is like consulting Pravda for a fair and balanced analysis of the Soviet Union.

if you have any arguments that aren't the thousandth rehash of "guns emit an evil aura that instills a lust for murder" and "this bad thing happened that triggered me ergo a ban is in order" and "common sense gun control" (read: criminalizing self-defense UK-style) then maybe I would. unfortunately that's not the case here, which is why I find these threads repetitive and tiresome.

[Judean Zealot]

You lost meXD

That TYT edited the clips, organised them, and gives a commentary on it means more to the films (un)reliability than you are willing to admit.

[Flapjack]

That TYT edited the clips, organised them, and gives a commentary on it means more to the films (un)reliability than you are willing to admit.
Tumblr pls. using TYT as a source is like consulting Pravda for a fair and balanced analysis of the Soviet Union.

if you have any arguments that aren't the thousandth rehash of "guns emit an evil aura that instills a lust for murder" and "this bad thing happened that triggered me ergo a ban is in order" and "common sense gun control" (read: criminalizing self-defense UK-style) then maybe I would. unfortunately that's not the case here, which is why I find these threads repetitive and tiresome.
none of these are TYT.

v8qa5Wk_f7U
cX5CPx4RKWw
J9TFvh6Xps4
"guns emit an evil aura that instills a lust for murder"
Who has ever said this?
"this bad thing happened that triggered me ergo a ban is in order" and "common sense gun control"
Nothing has happened to me? But if I was unarmed and shot to death, I'd moan about it.

[phuckphace]

Who has ever said this?

it's implied in numerous gun-control arguments which ignore the demographics of crime due to political bias (such as The Young Dorks) and that certain groups are statistically more likely to commit gun violence than others. if you start from the premise that anyone with a gun is equally likely to commit a violent crime with it as anyone else, and ignore all other factors and evidence to the contrary, then this is logically the only other way to explain it.

gun crime in the US is not insignificant, but in reality it's a hell of a lot lower than one would expect given how many guns there actually are. only a very small fraction of American guns are ever used in crimes.

[Microcosm]

That is crazy, we shouldn't protect innocent people because by doing so, armed men trying a rebellion might die?

Yes. Innocent people would die in the process of a rebellion. Way more than get shot up now. And I believe it would be on quite a massive scale because there are over 300 million guns in the USA owned by people who believe it is their constitutional right to own them. Any attempt by the government to infringe on that right would be, in their minds, the same as a government tyranny. So, massive confiscation is illogical. A large fraction of gun owners would inevitably fight back.

Something I never got about gun owners who like keeping guns to keep the goverment in check is the fact that they always overlook how the USA has the world's most powerful and well funded military in the history of the world. No one sain will try anything. A few nut jobs might, but they're probably the same people that shot up abortion clinics.

So you'd rather have the people completely disarmed if the government ever did try to attack our freedoms? You'd rather people not be able to stand a chance?

It's been clearly shown throughout history that just because a fighting power is well-armed, that does not mean they will win in a war. Often times it depends on who wants victory more rather than the ability of their fighting power(ex. the American revolution). If the government started infringing heavily on people's rights and people owned guns, I do believe the masses could form a militia of the able-bodied and take down the government if it ever came to that. At least we would have a chance. It would be high treason, but we would have a chance.

I also consider it unlikely that the government ever will infringe on our rights in an unforgivable manner. This is because the government is made up of various different groups who wouldn't all agree on it.

Forget disarming officers buddy, it will be 200 years at least before the USA could get there!

As I've already stated, disarming officers in the USA would give criminals their hayday. It's a bad idea.

I think in the USA the first thing should be limits on the kinds of guns people can buy and btw as far as I know, 99% of guns are designed for killing. Stuff like armor piercing rounds and 200 round mags should be common sense.

The argument many gun owners put forth is that many of these things are bought for the purpose of collection. Also, hunting is a huge sport in America. What I meant by saying guns made for killing was guns and ammo made for killing other people aka assault rifles and armor piercing rounds. I thought that was implied.

I think pepper spray would replace the need for everyone to be ninjas:') but I get your point and tbh I doubt there will be a revolt. Many say they will but I doubt they actually will. Look at the twats that taken ovet that federal building. They claimed they would die for their cause and shot the cops. How many died for their cause? None. How many shot cops? None.

How many shot cops? What? Why would you shoot a cop? Because he shot someone that pulled a gun on him? Also, cases of cops shooting people are heard in court if there is reason to believe it was unjust. The cases of cops shooting people and not hearing any justice whatsoever is mostly false as they usually are heard in court and most of the times are found to be not guilty of improper use of force. Usually the suspect threatened their life. The media won't tell you that, of course.

LOL @ pepper spray as effective means of defense against an armed criminal.

EDIT: Saw your video. In the U.S. when someone reaches in their pocket or behind them there is a high likelyhood that they are pulling out a gun rather than a knife. Also, if someone ran at me with a knife, I would feel justified in shooting them. If they planned on killing me, I'd want to be the one to kill them first.

The guy in your UK police video could've been much more violent and aggressive than he was.

[Vlerchan]

gun crime in the US is not insignificant, but in reality it's a hell of a lot lower than one would expect given how many guns there actually are.
I checked (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate). When one uses the data for fire-arm related homicides per 100,000 people, per year, the United States has about 57 times that which the United Kingdom has.

Jesus.

[...] ex. the American revolution [...]
Serious question, in schools in the US, do students learn about the significant contribution of Bourbon-France and Bourbon-Spain to the effort.

[Judean Zealot]

^^^ To the best of my knowledge, no. The French are generally given a nod by Saratoga and Yorktown, but they definitely don't get their full dues.

[Microcosm]

Serious question, in schools in the US, do students learn about the significant contribution of Bourbon-France and Bourbon-Spain to the effort.

France, somewhat. Spain, not really.

Although I do think American leadership was influential in many non-naval victories.

EDIT: I'll add that the history class in which I learned this information was from a well-informed teacher and was an AP level class. She also noted that there is a good chance that America realistically may not have one the war without the help of France in particular. Most kids probably don't get very in-depth with history in America or they just don't care.

[DriveAlive]

I guess I will take the hardline approach and say that there should be no gun control. Background checks today are ineffective, as well as firearms bans. Also, I am against anything that weakens the police force.

[Stronk Serb]

But you know in the constitution it guarantees the right to bare arms if you're in a well regulated miliitia, which in today speak means the policeforce or the army. Also slavery was one of the original amendents!

It is a tough one though, esspecially with how many guns are out there and with the NRA.



True, they might have stolen something or whatever... that is not a reason to kill thim.

Also you have so many cases of cops shooting innocent black people for no reason.

Last year in Chicago alone, there have been several thousand gun killings. More gun killings are comitted un Chicago the the police using deadly force in the entire country. About 1000 people were killed by police, 90 of which were unarmed.

[Flapjack]

Last year in Chicago alone, there have been several thousand gun killings. More gun killings are comitted un Chicago the the police using deadly force in the entire country. About 1000 people were killed by police, 90 of which were unarmed.
What's your point? Because there is so much more murder in the city of Chicago, we should overlook the murders by the police?

0 Unarmed people should be killed!

As for armed people, just because someone is holding a knife or reaching for a gun is not reason to execute them.

Yes. Innocent people would die in the process of a rebellion. Way more than get shot up now. And I believe it would be on quite a massive scale because there are over 300 million guns in the USA owned by people who believe it is their constitutional right to own them. Any attempt by the government to infringe on that right would be, in their minds, the same as a government tyranny. So, massive confiscation is illogical. A large fraction of gun owners would inevitably fight back.



So you'd rather have the people completely disarmed if the government ever did try to attack our freedoms? You'd rather people not be able to stand a chance?


My gosh you are one of them people that think they're keeping the goverment in check:'(

The reality is, if a large majority of the people rebelled it would cause a big problem for the goverment. But it won't be like when the Vietnamese defeted the US military. Today is different times and if you think you could defeat America's military, you are either greatly underestimating their strength, or are a fruit loop.:')


EDIT: Saw your video. In the U.S. when someone reaches in their pocket or behind them there is a high likelyhood that they are pulling out a gun rather than a knife. Also, if someone ran at me with a knife, I would feel justified in shooting them. If they planned on killing me, I'd want to be the one to kill them first.

The guy in your UK police video could've been much more violent and aggressive than he was.
Did you see the 3 I posted that wasn't by TYT? Also as if the cops in the USA would have used a taser. In the TYT vid alone I saw 3 people, who were outnumbered, just holding knifes and walking, at least 5 ft from the police and got gunned down.

I guess I will take the hardline approach and say that there should be no gun control. Background checks today are ineffective, as well as firearms bans. Also, I am against anything that weakens the police force.

They are ineffective because of the NRA!! So because current systems are bad, you think nahhhh we shouldn't imporove them... just get rid of them!!

[Just JT]

Last year in Chicago alone, there have been several thousand gun killings. More gun killings are comitted un Chicago the the police using deadly force in the entire country. About 1000 people were killed by police, 90 of which were unarmed.

Can you show us where you got that number?
"Several thousand gun killings" seems like the statistics might be a bit distorted tbh.

Yes, there a lot of killings every year, and that's unfortunate. However, not all can be calculated under as having the same meaning without more information. Police killings, in the line of duty, is different than muder. Just as murder, is different than self defense. So let's mix apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

But if you simply want to throw all killings by guns into one lump some, let's compare gun killings to killings by use of a hammer. My are we debating the control or ban I h of hammers to?

[Flapjack]

Can you show us where you got that number?
"Several thousand gun killings" seems like the statistics might be a bit distorted tbh.

Yes, there a lot of killings every year, and that's unfortunate. However, not all can be calculated under as having the same meaning without more information. Police killings, in the line of duty, is different than muder. Just as murder, is different than self defense. So let's mix apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

But if you simply want to throw all killings by guns into one lump some, let's compare gun killings to killings by use of a hammer. My are we debating the control or ban I h of hammers to?
http://heyjackass.com/category/2015-chicago-crime-murder-stats/

[Judean Zealot]

"Heyjackass.com"

Sounds legit - probably an Oxford publication.

[Flapjack]

"Heyjackass.com"

Sounds legit - probably an Oxford publication.
I thought the same :D it does list sources thoughXD

[Microcosm]

What's your point? Because there is so much more murder in the city of Chicago, we should overlook the murders by the police?

0 Unarmed people should be killed!

As for armed people, just because someone is holding a knife or reaching for a gun is not reason to execute them.

If someone is holding a gun and they get shot, they're not getting "execute[d]" as an execution is defined as the carrying out of a death sentence as determined by some legal authority. It is not murder either as murder is the killing of another person without valid reason to due so. If someone pointed a gun at me, and I had a gun, I wouldn't try to subdue them. That'd be crazy as they'd shoot you first. Tasering them wouldn't help either as they would likely maintain muscle control enough to cause damage to you or others around you. Shooting them allows you to both defend yourself and others nearby without the chance of damage being caused.

This is not meant to undermine the value of life or whatever, but does someone who would be willing to carry out murder on another person(aka a criminal with a gun trying to shoot a cop) really contribute anything to society? Chances are they're just some crook who will legitimately do nothing but harm. This isn't meant to justify execution or anything, but I do think it makes the burden of killing such a criminal a little less cumbersome.

My gosh you are one of them people that think they're keeping the goverment in check:'(

The reality is, if a large majority of the people rebelled it would cause a big problem for the goverment. But it won't be like when the Vietnamese defeted the US military. Today is different times and if you think you could defeat America's military, you are either greatly underestimating their strength, or are a fruit loop.:')


My point was largely as I had stated in another post that the conflict would cause massive death most likely as people would inevitably be threatening officers with weapons, thinking the government had finally gone overboard by infringing on their gun rights. In practicality, I can see the situation devolving into massacres or groups of gun extremists. Some people in America consider their gun ownership to be no joke. They'll defend it with their lives.

I'm also not saying that such a conflict or rebellion against the government would make the U.S. government as we know it fall or anything as you seem to think i meant, but the fact that we "stand a chance" as I said means that such a threat to rebellion would pretty much force the government to change their gun policies. They would have to if they wanted to maintain a stable union.

Did you see the 3 I posted that wasn't by TYT? Also as if the cops in the USA would have used a taser. In the TYT vid alone I saw 3 people, who were outnumbered, just holding knifes and walking, at least 5 ft from the police and got gunned down.


Some situations deserve trial and possibly conviction. However, more background knowledge surrounding the situation would be required and I don't think a few forum posts could really make an accurate conviction.

I'll also add that a handful of police "murder" videos don't justify disarming the public or police. By that I mean that more good than harm is done by the police being well-equipped to deal with criminals. Perhaps the better solution would be to train them better to deal with people who pull out knives rather than significantly decreasing their chance of survival by taking away the weapon they've been trained to use through much of their career.

OP you admitted that the U.S. is far from reaching the stage of complete disarmament of police officers, so, in your opinion, what must change in order for us to reach that point?

[Just JT]

Last year in Chicago alone, there have been several thousand gun killings. More gun killings are comitted un Chicago the the police using deadly force in the entire country. About 1000 people were killed by police, 90 of which were unarmed.

http://heyjackass.com/category/2015-chicago-crime-murder-stats/

From what I read, there were 255 killings by guns in Chicago in 2015 in those charts of information. Not the same numbers you state, being thousands by the police, more than the entire country etc etc etc

It also does not depict the "why" these killings happened. Yea, sure I'm sure many are murders, some are self defense, and I'm sure some are done wrongly by police, and some are justifiable killings by police in the line of duty to protect civilians, and stop crime, as is their job.

[Flapjack]

OP you admitted that the U.S. is far from reaching the stage of complete disarmament of police officers, so, in your opinion, what must change in order for us to reach that point?
There has to be less guns out there simply. Not a total ban on gun, people in Britian can get certain guns for hunting and sports with a licence. But because there are so few criminals with guns, there is no need to arm the police:) Heck, most police in Britian do not carry tazers and the police that do carry tazers have been well trained as tazers can be fatal too.


I'll also add that a handful of police "murder" videos don't justify disarming the public or police. By that I mean that more good than harm is done by the police being well-equipped to deal with criminals. Perhaps the better solution would be to train them better to deal with people who pull out knives rather than significantly decreasing their chance of survival by taking away the weapon they've been trained to use through much of their career.


That is not what I take from them my friend. It shows me that the training of American police is very bad. In Europe they are trained in how to deescalate situations and how to safely subdue a person. In the USA they have very little training and that training is mainly about them taking zero risk and being paranoid.
If someone is holding a gun and they get shot, they're not getting "execute[d]" as an execution is defined as the carrying out of a death sentence as determined by some legal authority. It is not murder either as murder is the killing of another person without valid reason to due so. If someone pointed a gun at me, and I had a gun, I wouldn't try to subdue them. That'd be crazy as they'd shoot you first. Tasering them wouldn't help either as they would likely maintain muscle control enough to cause damage to you or others around you. Shooting them allows you to both defend yourself and others nearby without the chance of damage being caused.


If a gunman is aiming a gun at anyone then of course that person has a right to shoot the gunman. The problem is that in reality that is rarely the case. They could be holding a toy gun in a open carry state, running away, holding a knife while 5 metres away.

[Just JT]

As much as I feel you have a right to your opinion on this topic, as everyone does, you throw out comments, as if they are common knowledge it seems, without offering up any supporting information to support your opinion.

Do you personally have experience or knowledge that compares the training of European police to that of the US police?

I don't follow the number of gun related deaths that happen that you claim, and I don't feel you place them all into perspective either. As stated earlier, you need to compare apples to apples here. Just because there are "X" number of gun related deaths in the US or Chicago, does not mean they all have the same preceding circumstances

[Vlerchan]

Countries like Germany put their officers through a rigorous education program, Llana found, where they are instructed on the many alternatives to pulling out their guns, such as pepper spray and batons. Officers are trained to handle extreme pressure situations and to realize that, when they may only have a second to react, reaching for a gun is not always the answer.

In the United States, improving education requirements as well as training intensity and duration may be the place to start, Llana suggests.

“In the US, police training lasts on average 19 weeks,” she writes, while “in much of Europe that would be unthinkable. In Germany, for example, police train for at least 130 weeks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/02/police-countries-guns-fatal-shootings_n_7709638.html

I'm sorry for using HuffPost but it came up first in Google.

[DriveAlive]

What's your point? Because there is so much more murder in the city of Chicago, we should overlook the murders by the police?

0 Unarmed people should be killed!

As for armed people, just because someone is holding a knife or reaching for a gun is not reason to execute them.


My gosh you are one of them people that think they're keeping the goverment in check:'(

The reality is, if a large majority of the people rebelled it would cause a big problem for the goverment. But it won't be like when the Vietnamese defeted the US military. Today is different times and if you think you could defeat America's military, you are either greatly underestimating their strength, or are a fruit loop.:')


Did you see the 3 I posted that wasn't by TYT? Also as if the cops in the USA would have used a taser. In the TYT vid alone I saw 3 people, who were outnumbered, just holding knifes and walking, at least 5 ft from the police and got gunned down.



They are ineffective because of the NRA!! So because current systems are bad, you think nahhhh we shouldn't imporove them... just get rid of them!!

The NRA has nothing to do with the current in place background check system that is required for every firearms purchase.

[Flapjack]

The NRA has nothing to do with the current in place background check system that is required for every firearms purchase.
But they have a lot to do with new gun control not being able to pass. They are indirectly causing so many deaths just so the gun manufacturers they represent can make more money. They are scum.

This is why we must get money out of American politics!

[DriveAlive]

But they have a lot to do with new gun control not being able to pass. They are indirectly causing so many deaths just so the gun manufacturers they represent can make more money. They are scum.

This is why we must get money out of American politics!

I am all for getting money out of politics, but that includes liberal money too. The NRA opposes ineffective and burdensome legislation that will not help stop gun violence and will hurt law abiding citizens. There is nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns illegally so why burden law abiding gun owners with more restrictions and hoops to jump through?

If you absolutely must require background checks, how about you are background checked when you purchase your first gun and after you get the gun, you receive a card that allows you to purchase future guns without a background check?

[Flapjack]

I am all for getting money out of politics, but that includes liberal money too.
Good:')
The NRA opposes ineffective and burdensome legislation that will not help stop gun violence and will hurt law abiding citizens.
No that's what they say they oppose. They're not looking after the people. They're lookimg after the people that they are lobbying for.
There is nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns illegally so why burden law abiding gun owners with more restrictions and hoops to jump through?

Do you know why there are so many illeagle guns? Lax gun control laws.

There is nothing stopping a druggie from getting heroin so why not sell it without any controls?


If you absolutely must require background checks, how about you are background checked when you purchase your first gun and after you get the gun, you receive a card that allows you to purchase future guns without a background check?
No. Between the time the person bought the first gun and the second (which could even be decades) the person could suffer mental health issues or have a criminal past.

[Vlerchan]

There's no consensus on whether background checks work or not. There's not a huge amount of good data, which has affected the conclusions we can draw from the literature.

Whilst we're on the topic of actual control measures, I support fining arms manufacturers for the deaths of innocents their products cost. Then we can let the market work its magic - and the revenue from the fines is invested in victimfamily-rehabilitation and inner-city renewal.

[Flapjack]

There's no consensus on whether background checks work or not. There's not a huge amount of good data, which has affected the conclusions we can draw from the literature.

Whilst we're on the topic of actual control measures, I support fining arms manufacturers for the deaths of innocents their products cost. Then we can let the market work its magic - and the revenue from the fines is invested in victimfamily-rehabilitation and inner-city renewal.
Yeah I used to think it was unfair but the second they have a financial incentive, they will stop the guns falling into the wrong hands.

[DriveAlive]

Good:')

No that's what they say they oppose. They're not looking after the people. They're lookimg after the people that they are lobbying for.

Do you know why there are so many illeagle guns? Lax gun control laws.

There is nothing stopping a druggie from getting heroin so why not sell it without any controls?


No. Between the time the person bought the first gun and the second (which could even be decades) the person could suffer mental health issues or have a criminal past.

What is your evidence for saying that the NRA only looks after their lobby? All you seem to do is criticize them without stating any actual facts.

The reason why there are so many illegal guns is because politicians target gun owners instead of criminals. Instead of all of these ridiculous regulations, we should have harsher penalties for gun crimes.

If a person decides to become a criminal or goes insane, they already have a firearm. Background checks will not stop them from killing. However, a ebony or mental health court order could void the card.

[Stronk Serb]

Can you show us where you got that number?
"Several thousand gun killings" seems like the statistics might be a bit distorted tbh.

Yes, there a lot of killings every year, and that's unfortunate. However, not all can be calculated under as having the same meaning without more information. Police killings, in the line of duty, is different than muder. Just as murder, is different than self defense. So let's mix apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

But if you simply want to throw all killings by guns into one lump some, let's compare gun killings to killings by use of a hammer. My are we debating the control or ban I h of hammers to?

My source was wrong. But when you look at gun crime in Chicago, there have been more than 1000 shootings since the beginning of the year

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-chicago-one-thousand-shootings-met-20150608-story.html

All police forces in the country shot dead a bit more than a thousand people, most of which are whites. About 200 people were unarmed. I wasn't criticizing the police, just the fact that in one city (Chicago) have been more shootings than in the other three largest cities on the East side of the US combined. For such a large country, the police is actually doing a good job. I also find it annoying that the journalists didn't move their asses to see for what were those unarmed people shot and if it was murder or legal use of deadly force. (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/28/3735190/killed-by-police-2015/ , http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/16/the-counted-killed-by-police-1000 )

From what I read, there were 255 killings by guns in Chicago in 2015 in those charts of information. Not the same numbers you state, being thousands by the police, more than the entire country etc etc etc

It also does not depict the "why" these killings happened. Yea, sure I'm sure many are murders, some are self defense, and I'm sure some are done wrongly by police, and some are justifiable killings by police in the line of duty to protect civilians, and stop crime, as is their job.

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2015-chicago-murders
Some sources say almost 500 people were homicide victims in 2015. I must agree on the sources being quite limited.

What's your point? Because there is so much more murder in the city of Chicago, we should overlook the murders by the police?

0 Unarmed people should be killed!

As for armed people, just because someone is holding a knife or reaching for a gun is not reason to execute them.

What if an unarmed person was threatening someone's life? There are many ways to commit violence or murder unarmed. Weapons just make it easier. Armed people shot by police were either shot because they were committing a crime or refused to follow orders and procedure, or reached for their weapon in a menacing stance, without informing the officer of their intention. For knives it's the same. Once you are armed, you are either a threat or a law-abiding citizen, depending how you behave with said weapon. That would guarantee a shot from me. You don't just pull your weapon on someone, you thing someone is going to be calm if you pull out your knife or a gun? No, they will shoot, stab, or run.

I also love how the journalist claim they investigate to the details, but I couldn't find the percentage of unarmed killings that warranted use of lethal force or how many were classified as murder.

[Flapjack]

What if an unarmed person was threatening someone's life?
Then don't shoot him!

[Just JT]

What is your evidence for saying that the NRA only looks after their lobby? All you seem to do is criticize them without stating any actual facts.

The reason why there are so many illegal guns is because politicians target gun owners instead of criminals. Instead of all of these ridiculous regulations, we should have harsher penalties for gun crimes.

If a person decides to become a criminal or goes insane, they already have a firearm. Background checks will not stop them from killing. However, a ebony or mental health court order could void the card.

I so agree with you here. I think this is a good topic to discuss overall. It's important, there is a problem in the US, and it need to be dealt with, but the problem is not guns.

But, we also can't have quality conversation about what the problem is, I'd of we're not going to talk about realistic measurable outcomes of the problem. Throwing out concepts about banning guns, and the NRA, and numbers of homicides without looking at the "why" this person or group of people were killed (notice I did not use the word murder) will do no good at all. That's not the problem here. People can and will use anything they can get their hands on to do any crime they want

Ever compare the homocide rate in America via a hammer to the homocide rate via a gun? Seriously, goodle that shit, then let's talk about the problem at hand.

It's not a gu problem, it's not a hate problem, not aviolence problem. It's a heart and live problem. And a lack of those is why we end up with, then as a result of, need guns.

[Vlerchan]

But, we also can't have quality conversation about what the problem is, I'd of we're not going to talk about realistic measurable outcomes of the problem.
Like I said earlier, fines - effectively Pigouvian taxation - should force arms manufacturers to account for the externalities there product produces (i.e., innocent death) and adjust their market strategy accordingly. In the process, we'll also probably get a tonne of new data to help us approach the issue, as firms are also incentivised to collect it.

Second-amendment remains intact: I can still shoot bunnies, and the government's helicopters when it inevitably turns on us.

[DriveAlive]

Like I said earlier, fines - effectively Pigouvian taxation - should force arms manufacturers to account for the externalities there product produces (i.e., innocent death) and adjust their market strategy accordingly. In the process, we'll also probably get a tonne of new data to help us approach the issue, as firms are also incentivised to collect it.

Second-amendment remains intact: I can still shoot bunnies, and the government's helicopters when it inevitably turns on us.

Should all other products be held responsible for misuse by lunatics and gangbangers? This is just another attempt to systematically strip away rights and punish gun owners.

[Vlerchan]

Should all other products be held responsible for misuse by lunatics and gangbangers?
You mean should we structure the tax system to account for externalities when we reasonably can, yes.

When markets don't reflect the true costs of activities, that's called a market failure.

---

Question, would you have the same issue with subprime mortgages? which arguable possess similar properties.

This is just another attempt to systematically strip away rights and punish gun owners.
This isn't touching rights at all. It's incentivising arms manufacturers to engage in more responsible sales practices, and since these are profit-maximising entities we can expect this to be considerably more efficient that anything the government might attempt to involve itself with.

Do you have an issue with regulating towards responsible business practices, generally?

[Stronk Serb]

Then don't shoot him!

Why? He obviously broke the law and has someone innocent by the throat. What if due to distance, that one shot lets the innocent live.

[Vlerchan]

Why? He obviously broke the law and has someone innocent by the throat. What if due to distance, that one shot lets the innocent live.
Police officers shouldn't use there firearms unless encountered by a direct and immediate threat. Strangulation takes about 2 - 4 minutes to cause death, and if you're at a distance that you don't think you could sprint to apprehend the perpetrator in that time frame, it's probably not a good distance to be shooting at someone from.

There's very few instances where it's justified to shoot an unarmed individual.

[Flapjack]

Why? He obviously broke the law and has someone innocent by the throat. What if due to distance, that one shot lets the innocent live.
https://media.giphy.com/media/hVmCCt5ikEUQ8/giphy.gif

[Stronk Serb]

Police officers shouldn't use there firearms unless encountered by a direct and immediate threat. Strangulation takes about 2 - 4 minutes to cause death, and if you're at a distance that you don't think you could sprint to apprehend the perpetrator in that time frame, it's probably not a good distance to be shooting at someone from.

There's very few instances where it's justified to shoot an unarmed individual.

Yes, but it's better than to ban shooting unarmed assailants. Instead work on trigger discipline and punishing murder committed by police.

[Flapjack]

Yes, but it's better than to ban shooting unarmed assailants. Instead work on trigger discipline and punishing murder committed by police.
I agree actually punishing the police would be awesome but there is never a need shoot unarmed assailants. It is not banned but if a person is not an immediate threat to anothers life then he should not be shot.

[Vlerchan]

Yes, but it's better than to ban shooting unarmed assailants. Instead work on trigger discipline and punishing murder committed by police.
I'm not saying we should ban shooting unarmed assailants. What I'm saying is that there are very few reason that would justify shooting one, and all killings of that kind should be regarded with the most extreme scrutiny.

[Stronk Serb]

I'm not saying we should ban shooting unarmed assailants. What I'm saying is that there are very few reason that would justify shooting one, and all killings of that kind should be regarded with the most extreme scrutiny.

That's what I think to, I was reffering to TheFlapjack

[sqishy]

Paraxiom has a crate of AK-47s and grenades in his closet with a gift-note reading "Tiocfaidh ár lá" signed "Gaddafi". don't let his seemly-progressive demeanor fool you - break into his home-dwelling and you're a dead cunt.


I'm honestly not sure what you mean! Please clarify? Thank you :P .


Unnecessary given the relatively small amount of armed-crime that persists in Ireland.

Agreed.

- - - - - - - -

I'm sidestepping this really surprisingly fast thread for now yet again - bear with me as I've been awake for about 75% of the entire week so far, and out for 60% of it all too (and am being admittedly selective with my motivations to respond to threads, yes, but I will get back to this).

[Professional Russian]

*the wild Bert sits and watches debate*
*the wild Bert decides hes spoken his peace with this topic*
*the wild Bert decides he will stay out of debate to not get in trouble*

what a lie that was. anyways yeah any who said ban all guns. youre idiots. in the US its impossible to ban all guns. A. because youll have a civil war over it and B. because of all the illegal guns coming in and out of the country...lets see who trys to chew on me this time

[Just JT]

Like I said earlier, fines - effectively Pigouvian taxation - should force arms manufacturers to account for the externalities there product produces (i.e., innocent death) and adjust their market strategy accordingly. In the process, we'll also probably get a tonne of new data to help us approach the issue, as firms are also incentivised to collect it.

Second-amendment remains intact: I can still shoot bunnies, and the government's helicopters when it inevitably turns on us.



Are you talking about taxing an industry, and force them for their wrong doing of manufacturing something that's in demand by law abiding tax paying citizen like they were committing some sort of haness crime?

Manufacturing fire arms is not a crime, and I really don't think it should be viewed like it is. I don't follow this thinking. Manufacturing crack, meth, etc, yeah, now that's a crime, and should not be legal. Producing alcohol, tax, sure. That's called a sin tax, and is pretty common.

But it's like you place making guns in a relm of like a marijuana dispensary or something. Here in fact, most legal gun owners are very well educated, very safe and use their firearms in only legal ways. And the cost will only be passed down to them, further pushing the lower socioeconomic class of potential gun owners to purchase illegal guns. Perpetuating the same problems that seem to be saught out to prevent.

Doesn't make sense to me....

[Vlerchan]

Are you talking about taxing an industry, and force them for their wrong doing of manufacturing something that's in demand by law abiding tax paying citizen like they were committing some sort of haness crime?

Manufacturing fire arms is not a crime, and I really don't think it should be viewed like it is.
I'm not criminalising arms-manufacturing and neither am I treating arms-manufacturers like criminals. What I'm attempting to achieve is the internalisation of the costs that guns pose on societies - that is: innocent death. This is a cost that is not reflected in the price of the gun under free market conditions. Where the true cost is internalised one should expect a more efficient distribution of resources - one that maximises happiness.

In the same sense, the costs of air pollution are not reflected in the cost of the price of coal under free market conditions. The fact that I support environmental regulations like a carbon tax does not mean I believe people that burn coal are criminals - those happen to be law-abiding citizens too.

The market for guns is prone to a market failure in this sense. Fining happens to be the most efficient manner in dealing with this. Dealing with this - as to refer to internalising the true costs of guns. Is this punishing arms manufacturers? No:

It's forcing them to recognise the true costs of production.

Producing alcohol, tax, sure. That's called a sin tax, and is pretty common.
The reason we impose sin taxes on alcohol is to fully internalise the costs that alcohol imposes on others. Either through public nuisance, congesting hospitals, or increasing health insurance bills. These costs are - like with guns - not reflected in the price of the good under free market conditions.

Sin tax's aim to rectify market failures.

Here in fact, most legal gun owners are very well educated, very safe and use their firearms in only legal ways.
I'm happy to hear it and the fact that I recognise this is the case is part of the reason I'm imposing a fine as opposed to a tax on firms. The fact that it's a fine means there's an incentive for firms to innovate and attempt to separate the good from the bad - avoiding the fines, and reducing overheads: increasing profits. If you're a "very safe" gun-owner you shouldn't have a thing to worry about: being relatively riskless, your position vis-a-vis that prior the introduction of the legislation is broadly unchanged.

In other words, there's lots of responsible people - and I recognise that, what this system incentivises is responsible sellers.

And the cost will only be passed down to them, further pushing the lower socioeconomic class of potential gun owners to purchase illegal guns.
Odds are firms will become incredibly particular about where there guns end up. In the medium-run there be considerable rents - big profits - on offer to whichever managed to eliminate the issue of there guns being passed on illegally.

I should also add that odds are there won't be a huge increase in price*. I keep getting told that the vast majority of gunowners are very well educated and very safe (which I don't doubt), and, as such, the cost of bad-eggs will be widely spread.

---

Edit.

*Just checked, and the handgun demand is quite elastic (http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/324656?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents), so the scope for passing on increases in the costs of production is quite limited regardless.

[DriveAlive]

I'm not criminalising arms-manufacturing and neither am I treating arms-manufacturers like criminals. What I'm attempting to achieve is the internalisation of the costs that guns pose on societies - that is: innocent death. This is a cost that is not reflected in the price of the gun under free market conditions. Where the true cost is internalised one should expect a more efficient distribution of resources - one that maximises happiness.

In the same sense, the costs of air pollution are not reflected in the cost of the price of coal under free market conditions. The fact that I support environmental regulations like a carbon tax does not mean I believe people that burn coal are criminals - those happen to be law-abiding citizens too.

The market for guns is prone to a market failure in this sense. Fining happens to be the most efficient manner in dealing with this. Dealing with this - as to refer to internalising the true costs of guns. Is this punishing arms manufacturers? No:

It's forcing them to recognise the true costs of production.


The reason we impose sin taxes on alcohol is to fully internalise the costs that alcohol imposes on others. Either through public nuisance, congesting hospitals, or increasing health insurance bills. These costs are - like with guns - not reflected in the price of the good under free market conditions.

Sin tax's aim to rectify market failures.


I'm happy to hear it and the fact that I recognise this is the case is part of the reason I'm imposing a fine as opposed to a tax on firms. The fact that it's a fine means there's an incentive for firms to innovate and attempt to separate the good from the bad - avoiding the fines, and reducing overheads: increasing profits. If you're a "very safe" gun-owner you shouldn't have a thing to worry about: being relatively riskless, your position vis-a-vis that prior the introduction of the legislation is broadly unchanged.

In other words, there's lots of responsible people - and I recognise that, what this system incentivises is responsible sellers.


Odds are firms will become incredibly particular about where there guns end up. In the medium-run there be considerable rents - big profits - on offer to whichever managed to eliminate the issue of there guns being passed on illegally.

I should also add that odds are there won't be a huge increase in price*. I keep getting told that the vast majority of gunowners are very well educated and very safe (which I don't doubt), and, as such, the cost of bad-eggs will be widely spread.

---

Edit.

*Just checked, and the handgun demand is quite elastic (http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/324656?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents), so the scope for passing on increases in the costs of production is quite limited regardless.

Gun manufacturers do not sell to consumers directly, but rather through licensed dealers. Punishing manufacturers for the actions of irresponsible users does not need promote better usage or incentivize the manufacturers in any way because they have no control over what happens with their firearms or to whom they are sold.

[The Boom]

A LOT of people would be alive if there weren't that many guns in the U.S.A. I think only the police should possess firearms.I know sometimes it can be negative, but think of all the lives that could be saved! Ironic isn't it? Use a tool created to end lives to save lives...

[Leprous]

TheFlapjack

While I am against the general public getting acces to firearms with ease I am not against armed police forces at all.

In the case of Britian, what will the cops do if some terrorist starts mowing down people left and right with a rifle? They have no guns to shoot him, they can only run away. I wouldn't feel safe knowing the cops on the streets are unarmed and won't actually be able to do anything in case of a severe threath.

What would you do if you were a cop, and you had to choose between shooting an armed man who is a potential threath to allot of people. Would you not shoot him and leave him be, or shoot 1 man to save many?

While the cops in the US did shoot people in the past, it wasn't always in the nicest of neighbourhoods, and they probably felt threatened. It is only human to defend ourselves if we feel like we're in danger.

[Flapjack]

In the case of Britian, what will the cops do if some terrorist starts mowing down people left and right with a rifle? They have no guns to shoot him, they can only run away. I wouldn't feel safe knowing the cops on the streets are unarmed and won't actually be able to do anything in case of a severe threath.

Do you know how many mass shooting there are in Britian?

There are armed police in Britian to deal with terrorists like in your example.

Not shooting saves people that wasn't a threat. Did you see the video of the man wielding a machette?

As for the police with the pistol stopping terrorists, why are there soooo mny mass shootings in the USA?

The training of the police is more of a problem than the gun though. Look at Belgium for example.

[Vlerchan]

Gun manufacturers do not sell to consumers directly, but rather through licensed dealers. Punishing manufacturers for the actions of irresponsible users does not need promote better usage or incentivize the manufacturers in any way because they have no control over what happens with their firearms or to whom they are sold.
I am aware of this: arms manufacturers will be incentivize to choose responsible dealers and ensure these dealers adhere to stringent rules about selling. I imagine this relationship would be contractionalised.

The fact that arms manufacturers aren't frontline sellers don't inhibit the emergence of the incentives I described.

[Leprous]

Do you know how many mass shooting there are in Britian?

There are armed police in Britian to deal with terrorists like in your example.

Not shooting saves people that wasn't a threat. Did you see the video of the man wielding a machette?

As for the police with the pistol stopping terrorists, why are there soooo mny mass shootings in the USA?

The training of the police is more of a problem than the gun though. Look at Belgium for example.

Are you saying the man with the machette wasn't a threath? He did cut off someone's head in the middle of the road. In the USA it's not because of the police but because of guns being given to the general public. If there's 1 lunatic who get's a gun and shoots up their school then an armed policeman can still stop them.

I did say I am against guns being available to the general public though. Mass shootings aren't started by cops.

Also, what about Belgium? If the training is the bigger problem why ban the gun? The terrorist attacks in Brussels were not caused by cops not being trained properly to deal with them. There's a difference between a bomb exploding and an armed person that starts shooting people.

[Flapjack]

Are you saying the man with the machette wasn't a threath?
No I was saying he was a threat and didn't die because police in britian aren't trigger happy. Also I was talking about a different guy.
cX5CPx4RKWw
J9TFvh6Xps4
That guy would be dead if he done that in the USA.
If there's 1 lunatic who get's a gun and shoots up their school then an armed policeman can still stop them.

The UK has had zero mass shootings in five years.
http://newsthump.com/2015/12/04/uk-somehow-manages-fifth-successive-year-with-no-mass-shootings/

I did say I am against guns being available to the general public though. Mass shootings aren't started by cops.

I'm with you on stopping the public accessing guns. If the police in the USA were better trained there may not be an issue. Better training is desperatly needed. Im not here to say that my solution is the best, I'm saying there is a problem, we must recognize that problem and find a solution.

[Leprous]

No I was saying he was a threat and didn't die because police in britian aren't trigger happy. Also I was talking about a different guy.
cX5CPx4RKWw
J9TFvh6Xps4
That guy would be dead if he done that in the USA.

The UK has had zero mass shootings in five years.
http://newsthump.com/2015/12/04/uk-somehow-manages-fifth-successive-year-with-no-mass-shootings/

I'm with you on stopping the public accessing guns. If the police in the USA were better trained there may not be an issue. Better training is desperatly needed. Im not here to say that my solution is the best, I'm saying there is a problem, we must recognize that problem and find a solution.

I would still like to know what you meant about Belgium.

The thing is, since 9/11 the US won't hesitate to deal with potential terror threaths. Of course that man was on a much much smaller scale but he might seem like a threath to the US police (knife guy). If they feel threathened they will do whatever it takes to defend themselves.

If an unarmed cop dies because he couldn't defend himself, would that make it look good that cops are unarmed? It would look terribly unsafe.

[DriveAlive]

I am aware of this: arms manufacturers will be incentivize to choose responsible dealers and ensure these dealers adhere to stringent rules about selling. I imagine this relationship would be contractionalised.

The fact that arms manufacturers aren't frontline sellers don't inhibit the emergence of the incentives I described.

What specifically about the selling practices of dealers is so horrendous that they must be punished to prevent mass killings? I have yet to see advertisements promoting irresponsible behavior.

[Just JT]

@Vierchan, I disagree with your thinking. And I'm going to just chalk it up to being a cultural difference. Most people who don't understand American thinking about gun ownership and rights, will never understand it. Reality is, yeah, there's a problem, and the problem has little to nothing to do with guns. It only appears that way.

Your theory, only increasingly regulates, and places mandates on corporations on how they will be forced to conduct business, moving more towards a socialist or communist type of environment, instead of a free trade, free market, capitalist country we "claim" to be. Even though we really are not.

Now I'm not opposed to having some existing laws modified, or expanded, to help keep guns out of the hands of people who trully do not deserve or should have the (yup, I'm guna say it) RIGHT to own a gun.

I know I've thrown my opinion out here in this thread a few times, and I feel I am being here, and I appreciate that, but the reality is, this topic could be its own forum all together, is so complex, with so many opinions, facts, stats, and needing to accurately understand and analyze that information and use it in a productive discussion is just not going to happen in this or any other thread on this topic. Which has been debated here before, and as I remember, they never end very well.

I believe in the second amendment, I believe everyone should have a right to own a gun. And I think gun safety education should be mandatory in schools, starting as young as possibly first grade, right straight through high school. Which would also include actually shooting a gun in a shooting range. Topics I've brough up on the past.

But hey, we're not going to solve the worlds problems here, and all I'm going to do is probably end up with a strained friendship or two after some mud slinging and name calling (which has already started)

So I'm out, I'm done, peace, I've said mine, and I believe in it

[Vlerchan]

What specifically about the selling practices of dealers is so horrendous that they must be punished to prevent mass killings? I have yet to see advertisements promoting irresponsible behavior.
Please read the posts I made describing the manner in which the full costs aren't captured in the costs of production at present.

Of course the manner in which that objection was phrased was interesting. You seem to accept that this prevents mass killings - but have an issue because it feels like punishing the dealers (it's not - pigouvian taxation is a regular tactic in regulation) is wrong.

But - nonetheless - the fines aren't being levied on dealers: the fines are being levied on manufacture. I imagine will alter their contractual relationship with dealers to reflect this and manufacturers themselves will weed out dealers that might otherwise be irresponsible. Like I keep mentioning - and for whatever reason it is being read past - the entire point of this is that it coerces markets to reorganise themselves to engage in more efficient distribution of arms (more efficient insofar as it recognises all the relevant stakeholders).

There's also a difference between irresponsible and malicious. Irresponsible implicates a sense of recklessness and uncaring - as profit-pursuing entities are regularly beholden to.

Most people who don't understand American thinking about gun ownership and rights, will never understand it.
This doesn't breach a single right.

Your theory, only increasingly regulates, and places mandates on corporations on how they will be forced to conduct business, moving more towards a socialist or communist type of environment, instead of a free trade, free market, capitalist country we "claim" to be. Even though we really are not.
This criticisms ignores the entire intellectual basis to Pigouvian taxation. Classical Economists - the most free-market people in a given room - devised it as to eliminate observable market failures.

The reasons economists support free markets is because it leads to the most efficient distribution of goods - and admits no deadweight loss. When markets fail to internalise all the costs it leads to inefficient outcomes - i.e. produces deadweight loss. When Pigou suggested taxing externalities in order to eliminate the deadweight loss that emerges where these persist.

This is a capitalists solution to the issue of capitalism.

But hey, we're not going to solve the worlds problems here, and all I'm going to do is probably end up with a strained friendship or two after some mud slinging and name calling (which has already started)

So I'm out, I'm done, peace, I've said mine, and I believe in it
That's fair enough. I don't hold a single bad feeling about people disagreeing with me - but I can understand the concern.

Have a nice day, anyways.

[Porpoise101]

I think that in the US, guns can be ok. In fact, many in my family are hunters and they also like to shoot for sport. But to me, I think that there are way too many guns illegally floating around. I think it is important to get rid of the illegal weapons first before regulating more harshly.

[DriveAlive]

Please read the posts I made describing the manner in which the full costs aren't captured in the costs of production at present.

Of course the manner in which that objection was phrased was interesting. You seem to accept that this prevents mass killings - but have an issue because it feels like punishing the dealers (it's not - pigouvian taxation is a regular tactic in regulation) is wrong.

But - nonetheless - the fines aren't being levied on dealers: the fines are being levied on manufacture. I imagine will alter their contractual relationship with dealers to reflect this and manufacturers themselves will weed out dealers that might otherwise be irresponsible. Like I keep mentioning - and for whatever reason it is being read past - the entire point of this is that it coerces markets to reorganise themselves to engage in more efficient distribution of arms (more efficient insofar as it recognises all the relevant stakeholders).

There's also a difference between irresponsible and malicious. Irresponsible implicates a sense of recklessness and uncaring - as profit-pursuing entities are regularly beholden to.


This doesn't breach a single right.


This criticisms ignores the entire intellectual basis to Pigouvian taxation. Classical Economists - the most free-market people in a given room - devised it as to eliminate observable market failures.

The reasons economists support free markets is because it leads to the most efficient distribution of goods - and admits no deadweight loss. When markets fail to internalise all the costs it leads to inefficient outcomes - i.e. produces deadweight loss. When Pigou suggested taxing externalities in order to eliminate the deadweight loss that emerges where these persist.

This is a capitalists solution to the issue of capitalism.


That's fair enough. I don't hold a single bad feeling about people disagreeing with me - but I can understand the concern.

Have a nice day, anyways.

If I am not understanding you, explain to me how a tax will motivate a manufacturer to efficiently prevent a mentally disturbed individual or criminal from buying their product legally if they are able to get through the background check. Specifically, what actions would the manufacturer undertake to get this result.

[Vlerchan]

Specifically, what actions would the manufacturer undertake to get this result.
The manufacturer engages in a contractual arrangement with dealers that the dealers will undertake certain steps before selling arms: or face being in breach of contract. The official government background checks will be removed. The point of leaving it to the market is that it means that producers can experiment with what the most efficient combination of 'certain steps' happens to be. I can't guarantee any of these will be undertaken, but here's what I'd imagine at first instance.

Odds are, that the liability for the fine will be contractually placed on purchasers of arms to so to discourage third-party sales. That is, the purchaser will be notified that if the gun finds its way into the hands of criminals, and murder occurs, she will be liable to pay some amount x to the dealer (/manufacturer). Furthermore, we'll see the proliferation of smart-guns, as manufacturers become economically-interested in mitigating the societal damage their products can wreak.

Mitigating the damage of the mentally incompetent will probably require a schema of background checks and testimonials. These could be more frequent: I'm not sure. There could be degrees of price-discrimination (an entirely lawful practice) based on perceived-risk.

Worst comes to bear, and we'll probably just see gun-owners being required to pay the dealer (manufacturers) the extent of the fine, if they are found to have committed murder in a court of law. Thus, the entire burden of the cost is placed on the legally-condemned, this can help fund programmes to mitigate the social costs of gun-violence, and economists are still happy because the full-costs are internalised.