Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Discuss Current Events, Politics, Theology, Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, etc. Please stay on-topic. Serious discussions/debates only. No personal attacks.
User avatar
Itsa notame
grasshopper
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 7:28 pm
Location: Where I am.

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby Itsa notame » Fri Sep 09, 2016 1:23 am

I don't own a gun because I've never seen the need for one. Do I believe you should be able to own one just because? Fuck yeah you should. The guns aren't the problem. People are the problem. As far as what types of guns are bad.....all of them kill people. I personally will be buying a gun in the near future because as I get older and pay attention to how fucked up the world is I feel like I may need one in the near or distant future. Is that true?maybe not but I do like guns. They make loud noises and break shit.
User avatar
ghostdogg
Rewind. Spit. Scratch. See Heaven.
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 10:41 pm

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby ghostdogg » Fri Sep 09, 2016 2:03 am

The most compelling argument ive heard for this, is to not make it SO easy for people to get ahold of firearms - rather than opposing the right to aquire them.

That said, I live in a country that has this type of legislation and I know how easy it STILL IS to get ahold of firearms. Shootings are increasingly common in Toronto and I imagine this is the same in any major city.

If, hypothetically, legislation were able to prevent firearm acquisition to (troubled) people, wouldn't they just resort to other weapons of destruction? I agree the issue here is the intent of people but I just don't see how legislation could have any positive effect - whether it works or not.

I haven't gone through this whole thread yet but thats what I find interesting in this debate... What are the supporting arguments that firearm-control works? I know of countries that have better statistical results than others but I still don't see how legislation will do any good.

I would love to leave this earth knowing our children, and our future, will be set on a path to thrive in life - so I love the fact that people might have this intention but I do think the "legislation debate" is futile.
User avatar
Charmosa
God
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby Charmosa » Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:11 am

ghostdogg wrote:I know of countries that have better statistical results than others but I still don't see how legislation will do any good.


You don't think legislation has anything to do with those statistical results in other countries? Because when you follow the gun control laws and gun deaths even just in the UK where I linked info in my last post, you can see results. And in the UK it's legal to own guns, there was no all out ban on arming oneself with guns. There are lots of other countries to point to as well where the evidence points to stricter laws causing less deaths.
User avatar
ghostdogg
Rewind. Spit. Scratch. See Heaven.
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 10:41 pm

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby ghostdogg » Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:44 pm

Charmosa wrote:
ghostdogg wrote:I know of countries that have better statistical results than others but I still don't see how legislation will do any good.


You don't think legislation has anything to do with those statistical results in other countries? Because when you follow the gun control laws and gun deaths even just in the UK where I linked info in my last post, you can see results. And in the UK it's legal to own guns, there was no all out ban on arming oneself with guns. There are lots of other countries to point to as well where the evidence points to stricter laws causing less deaths.


Right - I wasn't suggesting that it would eliminate the ability of "arming oneself with guns", I was simply stating that I don't think legislation would have any positive effect. What I said about "statistics" is that they might seem favourable from one country (to another) but there are obviously other contributing reasons to the stats. Take UK, for example, the gun control was actually introduced and implemented by a Canadian. And as far as I remember, the reason why this was implemented was to decrease loss of innocent life due to stray bullets from gang violence. Are the stats a result of legislation or a result of cracking down on gang activity?

Even in the reference you sited (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom), the last sentence of the first paragraph on that Wiki page states:

"There is some concern over the availability of illegal firearms."

From my perspective, the stats are favourable in the UK due to it's proximity. Take Canada, now... a large country that has had firearm legislation since before I was born. As a kid, you could give me $200 and two hours on the subway system - that's all it would take and that's when you don't know anyone. Then, police implemented the "Guns and Gangs" unit which did reduce the availability of illegal firearms but it did not reduce the crime rate. I mean, let's face it... when something new is popping, of course there's a dip in activity. But here's a reference to a recent article (Mar 2016) from CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company):

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/shootings-statistics-increase-homicide-1.3564549

the title reads "Toronto gun homicides rise 200% this year" and this is coming from Toronto, ON - one the four most licensed provinces in the country according to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Program

As I said, I'm not "for" or "against" gun-control, I just don't see the point in it... but I do hope I'm wrong because it's a lovely thought that we could implement legislation (which is "do-able") to make a brighter future. I'd all for that if I could see even a chance of it working.
User avatar
Charmosa
God
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby Charmosa » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:50 am

I get what you're getting at. It's definitely not JUST the laws that makes the difference, and it'd be hard to pry apart if it's the law that's helping or some other factors. A lot of times people pass laws with intent to help and it not only doesn't help in the intended way, but causes some other problem. Gang violence and illegal arms dealing is always going to be there. So I can't say I have proof that passing legislation matters on cutting down gang or gun violence.

That said, I know correlation doesn't equal causation, but I'm drawing some conclusions nonetheless based on the data I have. For instance, in the article you linked about Toronto gun crime increasing 200%--sounds bad, but the actual figures we are looking at are very low. The article says: "In the first four months of 2016, the figures show there were 18 homicides involving guns, compared to six fatal shootings by this time in 2015."

Toronto is HUGE. I actually lived there for a short while and have been back to visit. I like it. I stayed in a rougher area for a bit and saw my fair share of crackheads and homeless people. But in my reasoning, for a city of 2.6 million (2011 stats) an increase from 6 to 18 gun homicides for 4 months of the year...seems very very low to me. You'd never see that in a city that size in the US. Not on the lowest year. Actually the only US cities with more than 2.6 mil are NYC, LA, and Chicago. Can you imagine gun homicide ever totaling in the 2 digits for a year like they do in Tdot?

For comparison, New Orleans has a population of 378,715 (2013 stats) and had 26 murders in the month of July alone and we're on pace to be LESS deadly than last year:
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/201 ... st_of.html
I looked into -how- they were murdered here: http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/pag ... rders.html
by clicking the link next to the name of the deceased that says read more. For some reason only 24 are up with articles out of that 26 number, but 22 are cited as gun homicides, one did not say cause of death (probably gun) and the last was a stabbing. So a definite 22 gun homicides were committed (and a probable 25 out of 26) in ONE month.

Your city is 7x the size of mine and mine kills about 5x as many people with guns per month, 5x as many people per year so far this year (113 to 21), and 16x more last year (164 to 10*). A quick google tells me poverty is at around 30% currently for both our cities. So with the same percentage of poverty but a hell of a lot more people, why is yours so much safer? I think it's our gun laws and our gun culture and a whole bunch of other shit that needs to change. So before you write off your country's gun laws as useless because of this recent spike is gun homicide, consider some much smaller US cities would love to have your stats. You must be doing SOMETHING right up there.

*Note: I didn't look up each individual death because ain't nobody got time for that shit, and nola doesn't conveniently separate gun murder from regular murder, but from the random 24 murders I checked in July 22 were definitely gun and one didn't say so somewhere between 91-95% of all our murder is gun murder. Canada #s from here: https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016 ... ecade.html
User avatar
ghostdogg
Rewind. Spit. Scratch. See Heaven.
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 10:41 pm

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby ghostdogg » Mon Sep 12, 2016 9:13 am

Oh, for sure for sure. I wasn't saying that Toronto comes close to any major city in the states in terms of the numbers. I simply provided an article that shows rate increase despite legislation.

Also, I haven't searched for references but I'm certain that the number of police here more than triples that of any major city in the states..

Ive driven through the states before - many times without seeing a cop. Maybe one or two, here or there... Its not possible to drive to Toronto without passing at least 5 cruisers.

Also, I don't believe it's directly related to poverty. I mean, keep in mind there are no real ghettos in Canada. Certain areas aren't segregated and, in fact, the city designed integration a long, long time ago. Things work differently as a whole, up here.

Just a thought but I am not an expert...
User avatar
ghostdogg
Rewind. Spit. Scratch. See Heaven.
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 10:41 pm

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby ghostdogg » Mon Sep 12, 2016 9:38 am

Yeah, Toronto never had high numbers - so I wouldn't be so quick to chuck that off to legislation. I'm not sure what police get paid in the states but over here, it's 100k/year with extra special benefits and early retirement. I think it's like 10 years and then u can retire.

Despite the numbers always being low, despite the GG unit being taskforced with this for over 10 yrs, the rate is rising 200% a year. So I don't think not having guns and bullets sold at Walmart will change anything.

All I was saying is that this issue is slightly more complicated than just passing legislation to restrict firearm acquisition. Toronto numbers were just as small or smaller when you could buy RPGs around the corner.
User avatar
Philly
adept ninja
Posts: 557
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 6:18 pm
Location: Philly

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby Philly » Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:27 pm

OK after reading everyone's stance I'm gonna post mine. Mainly cuz I feel a bit different. I'm anti gun. To the point I wish they stopped manufacturing them. I see zero reason to own a gun and therefore will never own one. I realize taking guns away doesn't solve stuff and that people were clubbing each other long before guns and would just resort to something else after guns but I can't and won't support guns. I also don't waste time trying to stop guns or sign anti-gun petitions. I'm basically just adding the two cents of an anti gun person to this thread. I'm not gonna be butt hurt if u tear my opinion apart but I also wanna say I'm not trying to say that ur pro gun opinions ate wrong, I simply don't share them
Never apologize for being nerdy because non-nerdy people never apologize for being assholes - john barrowman
Image
User avatar
ghostdogg
Rewind. Spit. Scratch. See Heaven.
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 10:41 pm

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby ghostdogg » Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:54 pm

Philly wrote:OK after reading everyone's stance I'm gonna post mine. Mainly cuz I feel a bit different. I'm anti gun. To the point I wish they stopped manufacturing them. I see zero reason to own a gun and therefore will never own one. I realize taking guns away doesn't solve stuff and that people were clubbing each other long before guns and would just resort to something else after guns but I can't and won't support guns. I also don't waste time trying to stop guns or sign anti-gun petitions. I'm basically just adding the two cents of an anti gun person to this thread. I'm not gonna be butt hurt if u tear my opinion apart but I also wanna say I'm not trying to say that ur pro gun opinions ate wrong, I simply don't share them


Hey Philly,

Not sure if you were referencing me or not .. but just thought id re-iterate: I'm definitely not "pro-gun". Also, I think what you wrote was well-said.
User avatar
Philly
adept ninja
Posts: 557
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 6:18 pm
Location: Philly

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby Philly » Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:56 pm

ghostdogg wrote:
Philly wrote:OK after reading everyone's stance I'm gonna post mine. Mainly cuz I feel a bit different. I'm anti gun. To the point I wish they stopped manufacturing them. I see zero reason to own a gun and therefore will never own one. I realize taking guns away doesn't solve stuff and that people were clubbing each other long before guns and would just resort to something else after guns but I can't and won't support guns. I also don't waste time trying to stop guns or sign anti-gun petitions. I'm basically just adding the two cents of an anti gun person to this thread. I'm not gonna be butt hurt if u tear my opinion apart but I also wanna say I'm not trying to say that ur pro gun opinions ate wrong, I simply don't share them




Hey Philly,

Not sure if you were referencing me or not .. but just thought id re-iterate: I'm definitely not "pro-gun". Also, I think what you wrote was well-said.


No not at all just realized my saying " you" could be a lil misconstrued. The majority of Yas are pro gun and while I respect it,I don't share the views. Thanks for saying it was well said. I usually get called stupid and such for thinking the way I do.
Never apologize for being nerdy because non-nerdy people never apologize for being assholes - john barrowman
Image
User avatar
NaranjaRa
Nerd lvl: SUPA DUPA
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:53 am
Location: in the grove
Contact:

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby NaranjaRa » Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:28 am

although i admittedly only skimmed most of the posts so far in this thread, i feel the need to stomp around and cause a small ruckus.

PLEASE FFS STOP GENERALIZING AND ONLY SEEING THIS ISSUE WITH POLITICAL BLINDERS


it is NOT ALL & ONLY LIBERALS / THE LEFT who are against guns.
it is NOT ALL & ONLY REPUBLICANS / THE RIGHT who loves guns.

there are independents, there are other parties involved in the debate. some are sitting squarely in the middle.

this shit really pisses me off tbh.

Return to “C&D”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests