A discussion on the battle between America and guns

[AkydefGoldberg]

Whilst watching a news report that said Chicago had the worst crime rate (can't remember specifics but along those lines) it showed a snippet saying that someone could walk into a gun store and get ten guns?! Firstly, is that true and secondly it's an alarming indicator of the issue of gun violence in the States.

There was Sandy Hook and other saddening crimes involving guns and Piers Morgan, who I fucking despise at times, but admire him on this issue as he's made it an issue for him and his show which culminated in that shouting match with Alex Jones.

As we have got quite a few posters from America and North America, just wanted to get thoughts on this issue.

I understand there is a constitution amendement that allows for guns but it gets to the point where it becomes horrifying to think that murders on a big scale could happen in schools, supermarkets. But also people, like Morgan tend to forget about gun crime in smaller communities involving gangs and that's something that needs to be highlighted just as much as the Sandy Hook murders. Sometimes I feel the narrative on guns is all about the big publicised incidents and the smaller, every-day killings get ignored but because they are every-day maybe that's why they get ignored.

I feel glad that this sort of stuff doesn't happen in the UK, that is large mass killings in schools etc.

Thoughts?

[Everlong]

I hope Buck comes into this thread, because he's far more educated about this topic than I am. But here are a few things from me:

There have been many studies that have confirmed that regions/cities/countries that have a full-out ban on firearms have higher violent crime rates than those that do not. So, I think from that we can confirm that a full gun ban will never solve anything. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't further restrict who can get guns, how quickly they can get them, and what types of guns they are allowed to get. Background checks need to be taken extremely seriously, especially with regard to mental health. Anyone with a history of depression or other mental illness should NOT be sold a gun, plain and simple.

It's a difficult topic because every single time some sort of public shooting happens (especially school shootings), there are ridiculous overreactions on both sides of the spectrum. The anti-gun crowd takes up the moral authority position and tells everyone that there should be no guns nowhere ever, while the right-wing gun crazies instantly assume that "OBAMA WANTS MAH GUNZ" and says that the solution should be to arm everyone at all times instead. The rational solution is somewhere in between. Clearly something needs to be done about gun violence in America, but that something is not MAKING MOAR GUNZ or taking the guns away altogether.

So what's the solution? Well if I knew that I wouldn't be sitting here typing on a computer, but I think one good way to start is taking a much more serious look at mental health issues. It's kind of a taboo topic because there are so many people who unfortunately think that these mental illnesses aren't real, or that people can easily "get over it" when in fact these are diseases that are just as pervasive as physical illnesses that people suffer from. Mental illness seems to be a common thread in gun violence cases, at least the mass shootings that go publicized. So I think there needs to be more done to raise awareness of the seriousness of these illnesses, and more effort put into research for effective treatments and diagnoses of these illnesses. Because there are probably a significant amount of people in the United States that suffer from an undiagnosed mental illness.

Anyway, those are my rambling thoughts on the issue.

[Hanley!]

My brother is moving to America soon. He's a teacher. The gun laws over there will make me feel a lot more worried about his well being than I ever was here.

It's strange. Over in America this is a really heated debate, but in Europe pretty much everyone I've heard talking about it just think the gun control laws there are nuts. I guess it's something that's built into the psychology of Americans, given it's enshrined in the constitution and everything.

I'm all for very strict gun control. I don't think regular people should be able to have one really. It's just asking for trouble.

[The Legend]

My brother is moving to America soon. He's a teacher. The gun laws over there will make me feel a lot more worried about his well being than I ever was here.

It's strange. Over in America this is a really heated debate, but in Europe pretty much everyone I've heard talking about it just think the gun control laws there are nuts. I guess it's something that's built into the psychology of Americans, given it's enshrined in the constitution and everything.

I'm all for very strict gun control. I don't think regular people should be able to have one really. It's just asking for trouble.

I'm with you Steve, and the funny thing is that the Constitution doesn't really grant the freedom to own guns really. You have to twist a lot of words and take some out to get it what pro-gun people think it says.

[Everlong]

The funny thing is that the Constitution doesn't really grant the freedom to own guns really. You have to twist a lot of words and take some out to get it what pro-gun people think it says.

Well, here's what the ratified version of the second amendment says:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So I think you're wrong about the first part of your post that I quoted, but right about the second. The 2nd amendment does, in fact, ensure the right of Americans to own firearms. However, that doesn't mean (unlike what some gun toters say) that there are no restrictions to this. Supreme courts have ruled over and over again that there are certain reasonable restrictions that apply.

As for the first part of the amendment, the "well regulated militia" portion, I think it's clear that that portion of the amendment is outdated for today's purposes. The constitution is a living document, meaning that judges can take what's written and adapt it to the times as they change.

[Everlong]

Also, this is an unfortunately timely topic, as it's just been announced that there is a suspected school shooting in Colorado: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/lo ... igh-school

What the fuck.

[The Legend]

The funny thing is that the Constitution doesn't really grant the freedom to own guns really. You have to twist a lot of words and take some out to get it what pro-gun people think it says.

Well, here's what the ratified version of the second amendment says:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So I think you're wrong about the first part of your post that I quoted, but right about the second. The 2nd amendment does, in fact, ensure the right of Americans to own firearms. However, that doesn't mean (unlike what some gun toters say) that there are no restrictions to this. Supreme courts have ruled over and over again that there are certain reasonable restrictions that apply.

As for the first part of the amendment, the "well regulated militia" portion, I think it's clear that that portion of the amendment is outdated for today's purposes. The constitution is a living document, meaning that judges can take what's written and adapt it to the times as they change.

The Constitution says it right there, you are allowed to own guns if you are using them to secure the free state. You can't say in one breath the Constitution promises this right here in black and white and then say well what it promises needs to be adapted to today's standards. By that logic then what the Constitution should be interpreted to say is Citizens have the right to own single shot muskets, but no weapons with multiple clips or semi-automatic or automatic triggers. Since when the Constitution writers put that provision in this was the only type of weapon they were talking about.

[Everlong]

The Constitution says it right there, you are allowed to own guns if you are using them to secure the free state. You can't say in one breath the Constitution promises this right here in black and white and then say well what it promises needs to be adapted to today's standards.

I can though, because that's how it's been ruled for two centuries by the Supreme Court. What's more important than the words is the interpretation and the precedents set in court decisions.

Although if we're going to argue what the 2nd amendment actually says, you also can't say that it says that guns are only allowed to be owned if using them to secure the free state. While it seems to imply that securing a free state was the original intended purpose, does that mean it's the only purpose? Again, for two centuries, the Supreme Court has ruled that no, it is not.

[Settee]

I am glad I live in Canada. Yes we have guns, but the amount of people killed by firearms compared to other causes of death is minuscule.

[AkydefGoldberg]

I definitely agree that there has to be more stringent checks on people owning guns, alot more stringent.

In the UK, tbh, owning a gun means getting a licence and without really delving into, I imagine there are certain rules in place.

Because there's something in the Constitution, it is a topic that seems to evoke really passionate emotions in America but in Europe, and in the UK, it is a WTF are they doing sorta thing.

It's just sad that in America, these deaths happen and that any sort of revision to the procedure of getting a gun seems to be shot down quickly by the gun lobby.

[ShaneOfan]

I'll just say this the 2nd amendment was written at time when there were a lot of factors different from today.

1-We were a new country and we didn't want to risk having one state build an army and decide their governor was now President/King/Ruler. It was to allow for militias to make sure no one seized power.

2-People lived in more rural areas where the cops were not a phone call away. There were bandits, highway men, and Indians to worry about.

[Matteo]

As I once said in another thread, those who are are pro-second amendment constantly use the "if the government turns into a tyrannical regime, we can defend ourselves" argument. Well, the US military has the most intricately prodigious military in the world - if they did decide to turn tyrannical, do people honestly think having a few guns in their house will make such a difference? If the US government wanted to, they can wipe out half of the US in a matter of hours with their advanced technology and endless inventory. It just makes no sense. Well, not enough to justify school shootings and numerous other avoidable tragedies.

Constitutionalists need to remember we are no longer in the 16th century. Your apparent tyrannical leadership has more than fire weapons and knives.

[Kein]

I like shooting for fun, and I would be a little sad if guns were not allowed to "normal people" but that's my simple opinion. Fact of the matter is restrictions don't matter. Most of the crazy shootings if I remember correctly, are not carried out by the gun owner themselves, but by someone who they know who simply had access to the gun. Just because I own a gun and I know how to be careful with it and am in the right mind, doesn't mean everyone I live with or who even visits my home is, and this is where a lot of the crazy spontaneous shootings seem to come from.

I don't know how often people in UK hunt, but in America it is pretty common for people to hunt for food still. It's a sport, and some truly enjoy the food they hunt more than the processed foods that we can buy.

It's not just crazy shootings though, most gun fatalities in the US that aren't even murder, are accidents because someone other than the owner got a hold of the gun. One might say there should be a secure lock or a safe the guns are in, and I do that, and my friends do that. Problem with this is a lot of Americans are scared of their neighbors, and they want the gun to be readily accessible in case of imminent emergency. Trying to crack your own safe while a thief/murderer/crazy person is running through your house with a gun/knife is pretty tough. So what do most people do? Keep them in a closet, or under the mattress....

[Buck]

I hope Buck comes into this thread, because he's far more educated about this topic than I am.

Better late than never. Okay, here we go.

There are a lot of variables that go into comparing the gun crime rates BETWEEN two cities. You can't really compare Chicago's gun crime rate with say, Salt Lake City's, and try to compare them for the sake of arguing about gun control. And you DEFINITELY can't compare to Chicago to London, Paris, Montreal, or Edmonton. You have to compare apples to apples.

So, we will. Let's compare Chicago to Chicago.

In 1982, Chicago instituted a ban on handguns. At the time, they thought this would reduce Chicago's gun crime rate, which has always been high, since Al Capone's gang ruled the roost in the 1920s and 30s, and you had gang-related mass murders like the 1929 St. Valentine's Day Massacre (which eventually inspired a name for a WWE Pay Per View, oddly enough )

Nowadays, the gangs are still around, although most of the gangs' most dangerous members currently occupy the Mayor's office and the City Council (one of them is actually in the White House now too).

But as is usually the case in Chicago, the government fucked it up even more. Turns out, banning guns wasn't such a great idea after all, at least if you look at the murder statistics. See this chart:



Wow, that picture came out really small. Well, if you can't see it too well, this chart points out that in 1975, there were 552 murders. By 1982, it had dropped to 381, still quite a few. THEN, the gun ban went into effect. By 1994, there was a whopping 692 murders

So wait, 692 murders, with guns banned?

So Chicago's murder rate continued to be through the roof, until 2008, when the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban (along with Washington D.C.'s similar ban) as Unconstitutional. The crime rate went down, but guns still weren't readily available.

See, it turns out, after the Supreme Court struck down Chicago's gun ban, Chicago didn't give up. They put in all kinds of new restrictions, to basically ban guns by overregulation, to get around the Supreme Court's ruling. It wasn't until June 2010 that those restrictions were overturned as well, making guns readily available in Chicago.

So what happens next? Well, let's see.



The murder rate dropped by 14% in one year. That's a pretty big improvement. Definitely a far cry from 692 murders in one year, right?

I think, indisputably, most people would say Chicago is a safer place now than it was 10 years ago. Not saying much, as it's still quite dangerous, but it's worth saying.

If this story sounds familiar to it, there's a reason for it. The EXACT same thing happened in Washington D.C. at the same time. I've already done plenty of posts about that.

The plot thickens too. In June of this year, the Illinois state legislature passed a concealed carry law, making Illinois the last state in America to create a concealed carry law. Despite both chambers of the Illinois State Assembly being controlled by Democrats, it passed with a bipartisan majority, enough votes to override the veto of Governor Pat Quinn. The legislature probably did this because they know that easier access to guns has reduced the crime rate.

We'll see how this shakes out once permits start being issued in 2014. But if history is any indication, Chicago will soon be a safer place to be in.

[AkydefGoldberg]

^Thanks for that Buck, a very different perspective from the main-stream narrative on this issue.

To bring this debate further, a far-reaching analysis on whether there should be more stricter gun control would benefit from this analysis in every state and then to make an informed decision.

In the end, this is your country and you, having lived there all your life, are in a much better position than me. I think banning guns in the wide-ranging way that Morgan's advocated would be bad because the country ain't used to that and might never be used to that. So the key maybe as advised, for more stringent checks.