Gun Control

[SG854]

Since usually when a mass shooting happens in the U.S. there’s usually a debate whether we should completely ban guns or how much restrictions there should be. So, I wanted to create this section to mainly focus on guns and have people debate this out. And bring some information I found. Should guns be banned? Or should guns be available and we should instead focus on having better restrictions and focus on people's mental health?

Gun control should not be an idealogical debate, it should be an empirical one. And the empirical question should be, does gun control increase or reduce violence.

• In England murder rates rose after gun restrictions. And in England robbery and burglary surpassed the United States. Britains burglary rate is almost twice as high as the U.S.

• 40% of burglaries in Britain, Canada, and the Netherlands is when the home is occupied. In the United States its only 13%. All three of the latter countries have lower gun ownership.

• Murder rates went up in England under severe gun control, while murder rates went down as more and more states in the U.S. allowed people to carry concealed weapons.

• Most guns used to murder were not legally purchased in England.

• After a school massacre, U.K. banned hand guns in 1998. A decade after hand gun crimes doubled.

• After Atlanta Suburbs of Kennesaw passed a law requiring heads of households to keep firearms in their homes burglaries dropped 89%.

• In 1954 in London there was a dozen armed robberies. By 1990’s it increased to 100 times as many.

• Switzerland has lower murder rates then Germany, but gun ownership with Swiss is 3 times higher. Israel, New Zealand, Finland all have high rates of gun ownership but low murder rates.

• In the United States, rural areas have higher rates of gun ownership and lower rates of murder. Whites have higher rates of gun ownership then Blacks but lower rates of murder. For the entire United States had hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century but overall murder rates went down.

Gun availability and it's deterrence of violent crime does not enter statistics because the crime never happens. But there are areas where guns becomes more available and crime rates drop. And while people compare homicide rates and gun ownership with United States and England, people make their case that high gun ownership is bad by ignoring all the other countries that have high rates of gun ownership and lower rates of crime.

Spoiler: United States and England Historical Comparisons

United States always had a history of higher murder rates then England because of culture. So it has nothing to do with having or not having guns laws. New York has had a murder rate that was 5 times of London for two centuries. And for most of these two centuries neither of the two cities had gun control laws.

In 1911 New York made very strict gun control laws, but still had a higher murder rate than London during a time when guns were freely allowed in London. Gun control in England didn’t happen till a decade after New York restricted guns.

Making comparisons that England has a lower murder rate then the U.S. today and say it's because of gun control is not a fair example because U.S. always had higher homicides rates even when both countries had guns widely available. And after gun bans an increase in crime in England happened.

Spoiler: Incarceration

In U.S. legal changes reduced the fact the people committing a crime will go to jail. After this change crime skyrocketed. In 1974 it was twice as high then in 1961. From 1960 to 1976 people becoming victims of a violent crime tippled. Crime peaked in 1980’s then went down as incarceration went up.

Same happened in Australia from 1964 to 1999. Crime went up as incarceration went down. And Crime went down as incarceration went up. Graphs for England, Wales, United State and New Zealand are also the same. Crime peaked in England and Wales in the 1990’s then went down when incarceration went up.

People that criticize U.S. incarceration rates need to take this into account. Gun restrictions plus low and lax criminal incarceration rates creates a disaster.

Spoiler: Videos

Video about the history of the 2nd amendment and crime rates rising in England after gun control


John Stossel video about guns and violence

Spoiler: Sources

Guns and Violence by Joyce Lee Malcom
The Thomas Sowell Reader by Thomas Sowell
Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control

 

[Xzi]

Gun availability and it's deterrence of violent crime does not enter statistics because the crime never happens. But there are areas where guns becomes more available and crime rates drop. And while people compare homicide rates and gun ownership with United States and England, people make their case that high gun ownership is bad by ignoring all the other countries that have high rates of gun ownership and lower rates of crime.

Eh, there are also plenty of countries with very low gun ownership and very low crime rates, such as Japan. I think a high rate of gun ownership may decrease crime in certain parts of the US, but then you've got other parts like Chicago where introducing a lot more guns would only increase the crime rate. Also I think a high rate of gun ownership corresponds to higher rates of gun suicide, mass shootings, and accidental shootings, so even if overall crime statistics drop, the casualties continue to hit close to home.

I don't think we need to add a whole lot in terms of gun control, just universal and slightly more thorough background checks. We also need a full-auto/bumpstock ban, because IMO there's essentially no civilian use for these weapons other than mass murder.

Mental health is a different issue that's always gone with too little attention in this country, but there's no easy fix at this point without a massive monetary investment from the top down. It's certainly not going to come from the people that suggest mental health always plays a bigger role in a crime than easy access to a gun. After all, they don't really care about the former, and they're basically walking advertisements for the latter.

 

[spinal_cord]

The problem with all of the pro-gun arguments, seems to focus on the fact that even countries with tight gun control still have increasing gun crime. But it is rarely taken into account things like increasing population and population density. I have no doubt that here in England if it were easier to get a gun (legal or otherwise), there would be more gun crime. For a start, the events that trigger these debates are almost always mass shootings, something we just don't have here anymore. In my mind, that aught to be enough for any government to clamp down. BUT it HAS to be a national effort. Just having one or two states tightening their gun control will do nothing because people can still travel freely between states carrying guns, and they will.

With population density continually increasing, you are more and more likely to bump into someone, who for whatever reason, is angry/scared enough to violently harm someone else. The difference is, if that person finds it easier to get hold of a gun, they can do more harm faster and from a greater distance away. Apparently England's population density is about 12 times that of the U.S. so in theory, if the same percentage of citizens owned guns, you'd be about 12 times more likely to get shot based entirely on how many people you will contact.

The basic advice from countries with tight gun control is - is someone doesn't have a gun, no matter how angry they are, they can't shoot you.
A big issue that seems to be picked up on about U.S. shootings when reported here in England is that they often involve some sort of automatic weapon. There simple is no need for ANY private individual to own one of these, not one person can justify it. If you wan't to defend yourself, shooting someone 20 times a second should not even be a consideration.

But the issue, seem to be a cultural issue, more than a gun control issue. People in the U.S. seem to be continually told that violent crime is on the up and you NEED a gun to protect yourself. Which in turn, increases the chances of getting shot.

However, my opinions come from the perspective of an individual who was raised in a country where they do not need to worry about getting shot, and sees no reason to own a hand gun, let alone a military grade machine gun.

 

[Deleted User]

I think it really needs to be a state/local issue. In general, I'm very pro gun, but there are exceptions that need to be addressed. In some areas, the problem isn't so much guns as it is the culture. Just because you made guns easier to access doesn't necessarily mean that people will actually pick them up and start using them either way.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

A big issue that seems to be picked up on about U.S. shootings when reported here in England is that they often involve some sort of automatic weapon. There simple is no need for ANY private individual to own one of these, not one person can justify it. If you wan't to defend yourself, shooting someone 20 times a second should not even be a consideration.

This is just untrue. The vast majority of mass shootings are done with a handgun.
And besides all that, the number of violent crime has been steadily decreasing. So I think we're doing something right.

 

[Taleweaver]

And the empirical question should be, does gun control increase or reduce violence.

I disagree. The empirical question should be "do guns increase or reduce violence".

The answer to that is much easier, and doesn't need clarification because we all know that guns don't. This whole "but control has all these side effects!!!" doesn't do away that more guns simply mean more violence.

Some nice bullet points you've got there, but I find them more hilariously bad than worthy of discussion. Let me invent me a couple statistics as well:

• in 1954, Oklahoma had 15'670 counted guns and had 67 incidents of people falling of ladders. In 1998, gun ownership has increased five times. Incidents with ladders also increased up to 352.
• the first reported gunshot problem was Wesson getting accidentally shot by Smith in 1858. Since then, accidents with guns have increased with a factor 314159200%.
• the murder of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 led to the most bloody gang war the world had known at that time, with well over a million gun-related murders
• the burglaries in Burgundy might be higher than the assaults in Durdanshire, new England, but because guns were not allowed in Central Asia during the legislation of horses in the industrial age, the increase in violence in the US region of Florida is not caused by the non-correlated rise of the black population in Burgundy (hah! I bet you didn't think of THAT!!!)

So...basically: if the discussion is about throwing random facts around: bring them on!

 

[Deleted User]

I disagree. The empirical question should be "do guns increase or reduce violence".

The answer to that is much easier, and doesn't need clarification because we all know that guns don't. This whole "but control has all these side effects!!!" doesn't do away that more guns simply mean more violence.

Some nice bullet points you've got there, but I find them more hilariously bad than worthy of discussion. Let me invent me a couple statistics as well:

• in 1954, Oklahoma had 15'670 counted guns and had 67 incidents of people falling of ladders. In 1998, gun ownership has increased five times. Incidents with ladders also increased up to 352.
• the first reported gunshot problem was Wesson getting accidentally shot by Smith in 1858. Since then, accidents with guns have increased with a factor 314159200%.
• the murder of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 led to the most bloody gang war the world had known at that time, with well over a million gun-related murders
• the burglaries in Burgundy might be higher than the assaults in Durdanshire, new England, but because guns were not allowed in Central Asia during the legislation of horses in the industrial age, the increase in violence in the US region of Florida is not caused by the non-correlated rise of the black population in Burgundy (hah! I bet you didn't think of THAT!!!)

So...basically: if the discussion is about throwing random facts around: bring them on!

Wut about kennesaw

Dude, youre not accounting for the bandits dilemma. Which town is he going to hit? The known gun enthusiast town where it's illegal to not own a gun in most cases? Or the extreme gun controlled city?

 

[KingVamp]

Eh, there are also plenty of countries with very low gun ownership and very low crime rates, such as Japan. I think a high rate of gun ownership may decrease crime in certain parts of the US, but then you've got other parts like Chicago where introducing a lot more guns would only increase the crime rate. Also I think a high rate of gun ownership corresponds to higher rates of gun suicide, mass shootings, and accidental shootings, so even if overall crime statistics drop, the casualties continue to hit close to home.

I don't think we need to add a whole lot in terms of gun control, just universal and slightly more thorough background checks. We also need a full-auto/bumpstock ban, because IMO there's essentially no civilian use for these weapons other than mass murder.

Mental health is a different issue that's always gone with too little attention in this country, but there's no easy fix at this point without a massive monetary investment from the top down. It's certainly not going to come from the people that suggest mental health always plays a bigger role in a crime than easy access to a gun. After all, they don't really care about the former, and they're basically walking advertisements for the latter.

There is already a push to make the legal age for owning a gun 21. So, yeah, I basically agree with this.

 

[guicrith]

Ban guns, you can buy a gun with no restrictions, but doing drugs is illegal.

There is absolutely no logic to this, you have the right to have a dangerous weapon that can kill others but not to have some fun while only risking your own life(when used responsibly/no heavy machinery)!

Also there is no need for guns, they are weapons designed to kill, there is no other use for them, just killing animals, killing yourself(which should be a right, but there are far better less messy ways of doing this) and killing others, if you want to shoot things play a video game.

 

[Flame]

one failed attempt at shoe bombing and we take off our shoes off at airports around the world.

mass shooting every day in the U.S. and no body bats an eye.

the world we live in.

 

[Subtle Demise]

My views on this topic are probably pretty extreme to most people. I feel like the main purpose of the second amendment was as a deterrent to to tyranny. I personally feel that every step taken for more gun control is leaving us open and vulnerable to total government control. Dark times over in Europe. There is no free speech. People are getting arrested for things said on Facebook. Citizens are left with very little to defend themselves from governments who have a monopoly on violence. I don't want to see the same thing happen here.

Seems like ever since 9/11, people seem to think that even casually uttering the word "revolution" is going to get them thrown into Guantanamo Bay, or maybe even one of those new concentration camps they've put up on the Mexican border. If the government stooges were correct in saying that the terrorists' goal was to "take away r freedums!" then they've already won, and governments all over the world played rigjt into their hand. People now are probably too afraid that joining their local militia is going to put them on some government watch list or something. Oh, and I'll pre-empt a bunch of people by reminding everyone that militia is not the same as the military, so no the second amendment is not saying the government can have a military.

 

[guicrith]

My views on this topic are probably pretty extreme to most people. I feel like the main purpose of the second amendment was as a deterrent to to tyranny. I personally feel that every step taken for more gun control is leaving us open and vulnerable to total government control. Dark times over in Europe. There is no free speech. People are getting arrested for things said on Facebook. Citizens are left with very little to defend themselves from governments who have a monopoly on violence. I don't want to see the same thing happen here.

Seems like ever since 9/11, people seem to think that even casually uttering the word "revolution" is going to get them thrown into Guantanamo Bay, or maybe even one of those new concentration camps they've put up on the Mexican border. If the government stooges were correct in saying that the terrorists' goal was to "take away r freedums!" then they've already won, and governments all over the world played rigjt into their hand. People now are probably too afraid that joining their local militia is going to put them on some government watch list or something. Oh, and I'll pre-empt a bunch of people by reminding everyone that militia is not the same as the military, so no the second amendment is not saying the government can have a military.

The second amendment is obsolete and provide no protection, the government can just drone strike you.
Its like if we gave everyone penicillin today, all the bacteria are immune, just because it worked 300 years ago doesnt mean is still does.
You would have better luck with 3 carfentanyl(a reallllly potent form of heroin, used to sedate elephants) gas canisters, one on each branch of government, theres no way in hell you will win a ground war with the US government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis#Evacuation

 

[SG854]

The problem with all of the pro-gun arguments, seems to focus on the fact that even countries with tight gun control still have increasing gun crime. But it is rarely taken into account things like increasing population and population density. I have no doubt that here in England if it were easier to get a gun (legal or otherwise), there would be more gun crime. For a start, the events that trigger these debates are almost always mass shootings, something we just don't have here anymore. In my mind, that aught to be enough for any government to clamp down. BUT it HAS to be a national effort. Just having one or two states tightening their gun control will do nothing because people can still travel freely between states carrying guns, and they will.

With population density continually increasing, you are more and more likely to bump into someone, who for whatever reason, is angry/scared enough to violently harm someone else. The difference is, if that person finds it easier to get hold of a gun, they can do more harm faster and from a greater distance away. Apparently England's population density is about 12 times that of the U.S. so in theory, if the same percentage of citizens owned guns, you'd be about 12 times more likely to get shot based entirely on how many people you will contact.

The basic advice from countries with tight gun control is - is someone doesn't have a gun, no matter how angry they are, they can't shoot you.
A big issue that seems to be picked up on about U.S. shootings when reported here in England is that they often involve some sort of automatic weapon. There simple is no need for ANY private individual to own one of these, not one person can justify it. If you wan't to defend yourself, shooting someone 20 times a second should not even be a consideration.

But the issue, seem to be a cultural issue, more than a gun control issue. People in the U.S. seem to be continually told that violent crime is on the up and you NEED a gun to protect yourself. Which in turn, increases the chances of getting shot.

However, my opinions come from the perspective of an individual who was raised in a country where they do not need to worry about getting shot, and sees no reason to own a hand gun, let alone a military grade machine gun.

Banning guns in the Country will do nothing because South America exists.

There is no evidence that gun ownership decreases crime in the U.S based on Fire Arms and Violence a Critical Review. And since United States has a lower population density then doesn't that mean less likely to get shot according to what you said. You present the population density argument and increase in gun murder, did you just make that up or do you have evidence for it. It sounds like a good argument but you need evidence for it, many things sounds like a good arguments but end up turning out to be false.

Your population density argument doesn't really hold up. I mentioned in my OP that Switzerland had higher gun ownership compared to Germany but lower rates of homicide. Looking at population density per square mile, for Switzerland its 490 and for Germany its 235 based on U.S. census Bureau data. By your theory Switzerland with its more gun ownership and higher population density should be more dangerous but its not. Israel has a population density of 319, United States has density 84. Israel also has high gun ownership. Again if it was population density increases more murder then it should be true for Israel but its not. Its lower in Israel then U.S.

Australia enforced stricter gun laws and after the buyback program in 1997 didn't have much effect. By 2008, which is not enough time for population density to grow that much, Homicides decreased a small 9%, while assaults increased 40% and sexual assaults by 20%.

After the 1998 hand gun ban and confiscation, based on British government crime reports gun crime was not a serious problem in the past, it now is. British police use pride that they didn't need to carry guns, but now they started to carry guns because of increased in armed street gangs. I mentioned in my OP that hand gun crimes doubled. It doesn't seem like the strict gun laws in Australia and Great Britain have made people safer, or prevented massacres. And none of your points hold up.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I disagree. The empirical question should be "do guns increase or reduce violence".

The answer to that is much easier, and doesn't need clarification because we all know that guns don't. This whole "but control has all these side effects!!!" doesn't do away that more guns simply mean more violence.

Some nice bullet points you've got there, but I find them more hilariously bad than worthy of discussion. Let me invent me a couple statistics as well:

• in 1954, Oklahoma had 15'670 counted guns and had 67 incidents of people falling of ladders. In 1998, gun ownership has increased five times. Incidents with ladders also increased up to 352.
• the first reported gunshot problem was Wesson getting accidentally shot by Smith in 1858. Since then, accidents with guns have increased with a factor 314159200%.
• the murder of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 led to the most bloody gang war the world had known at that time, with well over a million gun-related murders
• the burglaries in Burgundy might be higher than the assaults in Durdanshire, new England, but because guns were not allowed in Central Asia during the legislation of horses in the industrial age, the increase in violence in the US region of Florida is not caused by the non-correlated rise of the black population in Burgundy (hah! I bet you didn't think of THAT!!!)

So...basically: if the discussion is about throwing random facts around: bring them on!

The point is does increased gun ownership increase violence, and my points is that it doesn't. Does banning guns decrease gun crimes, and I stated facts that it didn't in the U.K. and hand gun crimes doubled. They aren't just random facts thrown around. None of your points to attempt to debunk makes sense.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

one failed attempt at shoe bombing and we take off our shoes off at airports around the world.

mass shooting every day in the U.S. and no body bats an eye.

the world we live in.

A lot of it from Black on Black crime. No one wants to bat an eye because its apparently racist to call it out. If you take Blacks out of statistics and only look at Whites we are on par with some of the safer countries. White murder rates is comparable to Norway, Belgium and Canada. Its not all of U.S. that is violent either. Its only specific pockets that are. Gun murders overall has gone down as gun ownership went up, as population size and density went up. Except the last few years there has been an uptick in inner cities since Ferguson, no surprise there since cops are called racist and are backing off policing to avoid criminal charges.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Eh, there are also plenty of countries with very low gun ownership and very low crime rates, such as Japan. I think a high rate of gun ownership may decrease crime in certain parts of the US, but then you've got other parts like Chicago where introducing a lot more guns would only increase the crime rate. Also I think a high rate of gun ownership corresponds to higher rates of gun suicide, mass shootings, and accidental shootings, so even if overall crime statistics drop, the casualties continue to hit close to home.

I don't think we need to add a whole lot in terms of gun control, just universal and slightly more thorough background checks. We also need a full-auto/bumpstock ban, because IMO there's essentially no civilian use for these weapons other than mass murder.

Mental health is a different issue that's always gone with too little attention in this country, but there's no easy fix at this point without a massive monetary investment from the top down. It's certainly not going to come from the people that suggest mental health always plays a bigger role in a crime than easy access to a gun. After all, they don't really care about the former, and they're basically walking advertisements for the latter.

In Australia as suicide by firearms went down after gun restrictions, suicide by other means went up. Japan and South Korea has higher rates of suicide and low gun ownership then the United States. Looks like gun ownership doesn't have an effect on suicide and people will find other ways to kill themselves. Five years After Australian buy back massacres (four or more homicides) went only modestly down, but only for knives, gas, and arson rather then fire arms.

 

[Xzi]

In Australia as suicide by firearms went down after gun restrictions, suicide by other means went up. Japan and South Korea has higher rates of suicide and low gun ownership then the United States. Looks like gun ownership doesn't have an effect on suicide and people will find other ways to kill themselves. Five years After Australian buy back massacres (four or more homicides) went only modestly down, but only for knives, gas, and arson rather then fire arms.

Most people will probably have suicidal thoughts at some point in their life, briefly or not, but easy access to guns makes it that much easier to act on those thoughts. I'm sure it makes first attempts far more fatal on average. Obviously there are other factors that influence the number of suicide attempts in a given country, like social or career pressure in the case of Japan and South Korea.

 

[Monado_III]

> completely ignores Australia in OP

 

[Monado_III]

The second amendment is obsolete and provide no protection, the government can just drone strike you.
Its like if we gave everyone penicillin today, all the bacteria are immune, just because it worked 300 years ago doesnt mean is still does.
You would have better luck with 3 carfentanyl(a reallllly potent form of heroin, used to sedate elephants) gas canisters, one on each branch of government, theres no way in hell you will win a ground war with the US government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis#Evacuation

Honestly, the entire US civilian population (not like more then half the US population could ever actually be on the same side....) wouldn't stand a chance against the US armed forces (with >2 million active and reserve personnel), like wtf do you think you're gonna do to a jet or a drone before it launches a missile at you? Nevermind a freaking nuclear submarine that could strike you from thousands of km away. And who says when said government becomes tyrannical anyways? It's not like they'll one day just say, "So yep, we're going to be tyrannical now, k thx bye". The second amendment was created in a different time for a different time.

 

[Flame]

A lot of it from Black on Black crime. No one wants to bat an eye because its apparently racist to call it out. If you take Blacks out of statistics and only look at Whites we are on par with some of the safer countries. White murder rates is comparable to Norway, Belgium and Canada. Its not all of U.S. that is violent either. Its only specific pockets that are. Gun murders overall has gone down as gun ownership went up, as population size and density went up. Except the last few years there has been an uptick in inner cities since Ferguson, no surprise there since cops are called racist and are backing off policing to avoid criminal charges.

I talked about mass shooting... you talked about "Black on Black crime"


o....k

 

[ThoD]

Let's see now because this is a topic people consider too touchy even though the answer is extremely simple... Here in Greece, literally anyone can purchase a weapon freely without any sorts of checks other than age (18+ and you are clear) and (sometimes) criminal record. However, that's for air guns (any sort, pistol with compressed air ampule or carbines, etc.), which while they can be fairly lethal with a single shot, are mostly meant to simply damage the target, so great for non-lethal self defense almost all of the time. That way people who need protection can easily get it, while for firearms (that can be lethal with a single shot almost all the time), you have to go through extensive checks and get permits, but even with permits, only law enforcers are allowed to carry guns that aren't concealed. This all basically means, you can easily get something for personal or home protection without any troubles, while getting something heavier the normal citizen shouldn't have is much harder. On top of that, instead of having the stupid mentality that everyone is out to get us like some other places (mainly US) do, most people don't even choose to have any sort of weapons, they have the option to, but it's not made a big deal of and while crime can be moderately high at times, people feel safe, they have more important things to care about (plus males have conscription so plenty can defend themselves too). That's a nice system overall if you think about it and the vast majority of crimes as a result mostly only use knives (be it muggers or burglars).

Then you got the US which is a literal mess, mostly because it is too big to be controlled and regulated properly, so people are paranoid because of how many issues there are and just think having a gun will keep them safe should the government decide to declare martial law or something... My opinion is this, allow everyone to have guns that are mostly non-lethal (eg: low power airguns, tazers, etc.) for self protection, then for anyone that needs something stronger, have them go through extensive background/psychological checks and even then they must have a proper and valid reason for wanting it. Another important thing that needs to be done, in the US especially, have the gun owner face trial too should their gun be used in a crime, as most of those school shootings you hear about are basically kids taking someone else's gun to use, so definitely neglect and irresponsibility on the owner's part, which should be a crime honestly, at least that can be a deterrent. Past that, it should just be tweaked only slightly to fit each country a bit better, with things like max number of weapons one can own and so on.

 

[Deleted User]

Let's see now because this is a topic people consider too touchy even though the answer is extremely simple... Here in Greece, literally anyone can purchase a weapon freely without any sorts of checks other than age (18+ and you are clear) and (sometimes) criminal record. However, that's for air guns (any sort, pistol with compressed air ampule or carbines, etc.), which while they can be fairly lethal with a single shot, are mostly meant to simply damage the target, so great for non-lethal self defense almost all of the time. That way people who need protection can easily get it, while for firearms (that can be lethal with a single shot almost all the time), you have to go through extensive checks and get permits, but even with permits, only law enforcers are allowed to carry guns that aren't concealed. This all basically means, you can easily get something for personal or home protection without any troubles, while getting something heavier the normal citizen shouldn't have is much harder. On top of that, instead of having the stupid mentality that everyone is out to get us like some other places (mainly US) do, most people don't even choose to have any sort of weapons, they have the option to, but it's not made a big deal of and while crime can be moderately high at times, people feel safe, they have more important things to care about (plus males have conscription so plenty can defend themselves too). That's a nice system overall if you think about it and the vast majority of crimes as a result mostly only use knives (be it muggers or burglars).

Then you got the US which is a literal mess, mostly because it is too big to be controlled and regulated properly, so people are paranoid because of how many issues there are and just think having a gun will keep them safe should the government decide to declare martial law or something... My opinion is this, allow everyone to have guns that are mostly non-lethal (eg: low power airguns, tazers, etc.) for self protection, then for anyone that needs something stronger, have them go through extensive background/psychological checks and even then they must have a proper and valid reason for wanting it. Another important thing that needs to be done, in the US especially, have the gun owner face trial too should their gun be used in a crime, as most of those school shootings you hear about are basically kids taking someone else's gun to use, so definitely neglect and irresponsibility on the owner's part, which should be a crime honestly, at least that can be a deterrent. Past that, it should just be tweaked only slightly to fit each country a bit better, with things like max number of weapons one can own and so on.

While it sounds nice in theory, I really don't trust the practicality of a system like that? Who does the background checks? Etc, etc.

You also have to understand that it's just as much a cultural deterrent as it is active home defence.

*cough*Kennesaw*cough*

 

[ThoD]

While it sounds nice in theory, I really don't trust the practicality of a system like that? Who does the background checks? Etc, etc.

You also have to understand that it's just as much a cultural deterrent as it is active home defence.

*cough*Kennesaw*cough*

What are you even talking about? The retailer selling the gun does the checks, it's already applied here to great effect, so you are basically looking for problems where there aren't any, at least not in the sense you are talking about. I don't get what you mean by the "cultural deterrent" though...

 

[PanTheFaun]

I don't agree with gun control at all. Law abiding citizens who use guns to protect themselves and their families shouldn't have to fear having their guns taken away due to criminals who use the guns for all the wrong reasons.
I think law abiding citizens should own guns also in case their government becomes tyrannical so that they may be able to preserve their freedoms.