Political Polls [Pt.2: Political orientation]

[otto-san]

i guess if you already have a gun then the gun laws don't help much either

theoretically, even if all gun production and distribution in the world stopped, there would still be gun crime because there are still working guns; there's a definite lag period on these kinds of policies as a result and it makes it pretty hard to measure their real effects

[Ad Bot]

[Cappytaino]

i guess if you already have a gun then the gun laws don't help much either

theoretically, even if all gun production and distribution in the world stopped, there would still be gun crime because there are still working guns; there's a definite lag period on these kinds of policies as a result and it makes it pretty hard to measure their real effects

if all guns were made illegal right now, there are 310 million of them in the US alone, and those are only the known, legal ones. There are millions more illegal and unregistered firearms.

Collecting these firearms would be both expensive and difficult, and even then, you would only be taking them from people that had owned them legally and followed the law.

The problem with making tighter restrictions regarding guns is that any restrictions made only will affect law-abiding citizens. Criminals, gang members, fugitives, they won't give two damns because they're already doing illegal things, so breaking one more law doesn't hurt them. Hell, the guns they have already are likely unregistered with the number filed off.

Making tighter laws sounds okay on paper, but implementing them would be difficult, expensive, and wouldn't have any real effect on the minority of people that commit most of the crime.

[Clone v.117]

i guess if you already have a gun then the gun laws don't help much either

theoretically, even if all gun production and distribution in the world stopped, there would still be gun crime because there are still working guns; there's a definite lag period on these kinds of policies as a result and it makes it pretty hard to measure their real effects

Guns can still be recalled.
Naturally putting restrictions on guns wouldn't stop gun crime as well as somehow removing them all from circulation, but many countries have implemented gun laws and regulation that was not once there and the result was people stopped getting shot.

Fun fact about gun laws, other countries have had them too, they work.

[Cappytaino]

Guns can still be recalled.
Naturally putting restrictions on guns wouldn't stop gun crime as well as somehow removing them all from circulation, but many countries have implemented gun laws and regulation that was not once there and the result was people stopped getting shot.

Fun fact about gun laws, other countries have had them too, they work.

but again, culture is a huge difference.

Other countries don't have problems with organized crime on a scale anywhere near that of the US. There are 33,000+ gangs in the country with 1.4 million members as of 2011. Consider that these are mostly concentrated in cities and the problem is even worse.

These people are savages with very little regard for their own lives or the lives of others. All they care about is money and power and many of them won't hesitate to gun down anybody in their way. With the Mexican Cartels inching ever northward, gang related violence in border towns is at an all-time high.

Go to any given city in the US and ask about places to go. Most people that are familiar with an area will say something along the vein of "the city's okay, don't go past Chapel Street, especially at night, the east side of the city is bad."

This advice is given in nearly every large city and the bad areas are mostly gang territory. If an area is too dangerous for the average person to go, it may have something to do with gang violence. Other countries simply don't have a problem at this scale.

Japan has the Yakuza but they tend to keep to themselves and wear suits to cover their tattoos. Here, people will gun down others just for wearing the wrong colors. Compare the Yakuza to the Bloods. Both are scummy organizations but one is actually careful about collateral damage.

[otto-san]

if all guns were made illegal right now, there are 310 million of them in the US alone, and those are only the known, legal ones. There are millions more illegal and unregistered firearms.

Collecting these firearms would be both expensive and difficult, and even then, you would only be taking them from people that had owned them legally and followed the law.

yeah, you probably aren't going to know the whereabouts of guns used in organized crime or any guns that are "off the books"

i was mostly only saying that implementing tougher restrictions won't necessarily show immediate benefits, because guns can't just disappear

The problem with making tighter restrictions regarding guns is that any restrictions made only will affect law-abiding citizens. Criminals, gang members, fugitives, they won't give two damns because they're already doing illegal things, so breaking one more law doesn't hurt them. Hell, the guns they have already are likely unregistered with the number filed off.

Making tighter laws sounds okay on paper, but implementing them would be difficult, expensive, and wouldn't have any real effect on the minority of people that commit most of the crime.

those people probably already have guns to be fair. in theory, if you can restrict the distribution/production of firearms, you can over time decrease the number of guns that are actually available in general, but it could take years before you actually see this decline, and like you said, in that period, you can easily slip up and make innocent citizens have a much harder time. the reality is that there is no perfect solution. if it's easy to get guns, you're going to see crime problems. if it's hard to get guns, you'll also see crime problems.

Guns can still be recalled.
Naturally putting restrictions on guns wouldn't stop gun crime as well as somehow removing them all from circulation, but many countries have implemented gun laws and regulation that was not once there and the result was people stopped getting shot.

Fun fact about gun laws, other countries have had them too, they work.

yeah i haven't read up a ton on gun control in places like the UK. there's definitely a problem in the US and it's hard for me to buy the idea that the solution to the problem is more guns. we're a pretty big nation and that makes issues like this a lot harder to think about

[Path]

There's really no good reason to own a firearm so im gunna go with the no option

[BluetoothBoy]

There's really no good reason to own a firearm so im gunna go with the no option

*crickets*



Really? So if someone came into your house and put a gun to your head, there would be "no good reason?" Even from the perspective of firearms ONLY being used for protection, there is still PLENTY of reason. There sure is reason from the criminal's point of view. He's getting what he wants because he has a gun, and you don't. Please remember, it's the person, not the weapon, that decides to cause harm OR to prevent it. The tool can be used both ways, and since those who are bad WILL use it for bad, then it is only fair to us who want to keep our lives that we counter it with equal force.

[otto-san]

There's really no good reason to own a firearm so im gunna go with the no option

i disagree, there are practical uses. self-defense i guess is the most obv one, but there are also uses for people living in rural/agricultural areas. i have a lot of relatives who farm and their crops can get absolutely wrecked by wild animals, hunting animals like this and controlling their population is pretty important to make sure they don't destroy crops and become disruptive to other parts of society

[-Blok-]

Self-defense is the main reason people own guns. I'd just much rather decrease the need to defend yourself rather than increase the things that defend you.

[otto-san]

Self-defense is the main reason people own guns. I'd just much rather decrease the need to defend yourself rather than increase the things that defend you.

this is p much the stance i take in reality

i think it's more useful in the long run to attack the sources of crime (socioeconomic factors and living conditions, stuff like that) than it is to attack the tools of crime

[Cappytaino]

The other issue that the US is currently facing is that policing is such a minefield that cops are afraid to do their jobs. Just look at the public's reaction to the shooting of Mike Brown. The man committed assault and tried to rush a police officer to steal his weapon, which is a circumstance in which use of deadly force is permitted. Still, the public cried "tribal" and "no justice" and burned down half the town.

How do you expect to be safer when the police are afraid to do their job?

I was reading up on gang violence just now and found an interesting tidbit. "American gangs are responsible for an average of 48% of violent crime in most jurisdictions, and up to 90% in other jurisdictions.'

For 1.4 million people (.04% of the population) to commit anywhere from 48 to 90% of the violent crime is absolutely ridiculous and it's both absurd and inane that there isn't more of an effort to amend this problem. Community outreach only does so much. The problem is much more complicated than less guns = less violence.

[BluetoothBoy]

Self-defense is the main reason people own guns. I'd just much rather decrease the need to defend yourself rather than increase the things that defend you.

Here's the thing, though. It is FAR easier to allow something in this case than to disallow it. We cannot, will not eradicate guns from criminals. If you can think up a foolproof plan to do so, I'm all ears. Yes, I would MUCH rather decrease the need to defend myself, but the world is tough, and sometimes when we try to make life easier we just trip over our own two feet and make a mess of things.

[-Blok-]

Here's the thing, though. It is FAR easier to allow something in this case than to disallow it. We cannot, will not eradicate guns from criminals. If you can think up a foolproof plan to do so, I'm all ears. Yes, I would MUCH rather decrease the need to defend myself, but the world is tough, and sometimes when we try to make life easier we just trip over our own two feet and make a mess of things.

The easy choice isn't always the best choice.

[Cappytaino]

The easy choice isn't always the best choice.

In this situation, let's say that one could possibly gather up all the guns and destroy them.

This isn't going to stop violence. This isn't going to stop murder. This isn't going to punish people that actually are breaking the law.

If you're concerned about guns being unsafe, take a look at the people holding that firearm. A gun is like a hammer. It is a tool and only becomes deadly when the person holding it decides they will harm someone with it.

In a darker vein, people that wish to end their lives are going to kill themselves regardless. This won't lower Self Delete rates, either. If someone is to shoot themselves, they are not endangering anybody else and collateral damage both physically and psychologically is as minimal as it can be. I don't want people jumping off an overpass or in front of a train or slitting their wrists in the bathroom, which could hurt many other people and cause trauma for anyone that witnesses that.

[-Blok-]

In this situation, let's say that one could possibly gather up all the guns and destroy them.

This isn't going to stop violence. This isn't going to stop murder. This isn't going to punish people that actually are breaking the law.

If you're concerned about guns being unsafe, take a look at the people holding that firearm. A gun is like a hammer. It is a tool and only becomes deadly when the person holding it decides they will harm someone with it.

That's a bad brown townogy. Yes, a hammer can become deadly depending on who is holding it, but a gun is always deadly no matter who has it in their hands.