Gun Control (Argument and source submission thread)

Hello Temple,

I'm currently interested in the subject of gun control in the United States (a long-running interest, though one perhaps fanned directly by certain recent events). Knowing that I have limited resources in time and energy, and also knowing that the Temple can be quite active within short periods of time, I decided to post here a thread specifically directed at this subject. I did not post this in 'Open Discussions' however, because this is not intended to be a discussion thread - indeed I am requesting that people posting here do not let it become one. If you would like to start a topic elsewhere and discuss the subject, or any part thereof, I think that's grand (in-fact I encourage it) - but it's not what I'm hoping to see come up in this particular thread. This is not a place for personal banter.

I'm requesting well-reasoned arguments for gun control (yes, specifically for gun control, not against) preferably including sources when appropriate. I would also like to see submissions of good articles anyone may have read on the subject, as well as links to reliably-sourced statistics of related aspects of this subject, from the U.S. and specifically from countries outside the U.S. who have lower rates of gun-related violence. I'd also like to see anything anyone has come across regarding the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of police equipped with guns as a standard part of their uniform, as opposed to police forces which only allow special response units to carry firearms.

Now, that said, I'm also willing to read arguments against gun control, but I'd prefer that they be held to even stricter standards of self-analysis (careful, emotionally-distant, introspection), and that sources for literally everything be included - or, failing sources (in the case of personal arguments), a clear breakdown of the logical reasoning and structure behind the argument (actually I'd like that clear breakdown for every submission, regardless of position).

I'd love to see proper grammar and paragraph structure used in any and all posts here, if only to make it easier to read through - since reading on a screen can sometimes be tiring to the eyes.

I really appreciate your time in looking at this and, if you chose to do so, posting a response.

Cheers.

Locksley wrote: I did not post this in 'Open Discussions' however, because this is not intended to be a discussion thread - indeed I am requesting that people posting here do not let it become one. If you would like to start a topic elsewhere and discuss the subject, or any part thereof, I think that's grand (in-fact I encourage it) - but it's not what I'm hoping to see come up in this particular thread. This is not a place for personal banter.

Fingers crossed I'm not the first to break it :lol:

Locksley wrote: I'm requesting well-reasoned arguments for gun control (yes, specifically for gun control, not against) preferably including sources when appropriate. I would also like to see submissions of good articles anyone may have read on the subject, as well as links to reliably-sourced statistics of related aspects of this subject, from the U.S. and specifically from countries outside the U.S. who have lower rates of gun-related violence. I'd also like to see anything anyone has come across regarding the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of police equipped with guns as a standard part of their uniform, as opposed to police forces which only allow special response units to carry firearms.

Australia has that situation... gun control is strict, and Police carry a handgun as part of the patrol order/uniform.

There is some 'pro' points in my own words, but without the discussion which I was itching to add :pinch:

1. Police will need a significant advantage in weaponization to the likely potential capacity of the criminal threat - its just a reality of working against entrenched or unknown targets, as the risk of being under-armed in a situation should be carried by the criminal using a firearm illegally, and not the Police who are otherwise doing their dayjob and would rather be fishing!! Also breaching an armed situation needs maneuver which requires a valid capacity to suppress defending threats in various stages of execution.

2. Accessibility to weapons increases the chance of their use in a criminal activity, and widespread proliferation would logically tend to increase accessibility.

3. Police duty can include having to control situations where the order of law is breaking down, and the more people who are over or nearing that edge of self control who have firearms means a higher potential for greater unlawful disorder and subsequent factors of the break down of order, such as increase in confusion, reduced capacity for emergency services to attend etc

4. Increased accessibility to weapons increases the chance of accidental discharge incidents with there direct consequences, but also the indirect consequences can influence point 3.

5. Weapon proliferation can cause localized arm's races where criminals try to achieve an advantage in weaponization which spreads to civilians who do not want to be outgunned by criminals, which means the lethality of weapons available tends to increase.

Locksley wrote: I'd love to see proper grammar and paragraph structure used in any and all posts here, if only to make it easier to read through - since reading on a screen can sometimes be tiring to the eyes.

Do forgive me, please. Not able to do it. Guns are a way to defend, to kill, and to ''enjoy''. the question for me would be why to have guns in the first place beside it? America is big. USA is big. Large areas with no people, in the Netherlands we can have a ambulance everywhere within 10 minutes..

To say that being out in the wild, or remote parts of our world means to defend yourself. Does not mean to kill? Pistol and sword are one of the few weapons not designed to hunt. Only for war, just like the weapons in the same class, like a mace. The point is, how to defend yourself without gun when being in a remote area? And how to defend yourself in a not remote area?

How can a system be able to combine both in parts that are between remote and not remote? How can it be..

Aqua wrote: How can a system be able to combine both in parts that are between remote and not remote? How can it be..

Where I live;
https://www.police.qld.gov.au/programs/weaponsLicensing/licenceApplication/licences/firearms/default.htm

Case by case basis determined by Police with meeting specific requirements such as purpose and activity licensing etc. Your not even allowed to have an inoperable weapon or realistic replica without a suitable license (as if it was real/working!)! Protection from wildlife is more about being smart then being a good shot or quick draw.

Very few crimes and killings are done by licensed legal gun owners.

There is a huge amount of evidence and statistics and studies and opinions more educated and valid than my own, so i decided to base my response purely on my own experiences of guns control over three different countries.

Ive lived in South Africa, where there is practically no gun control at all. New Zealand, where not even the police are armed. And now Texas, where Ive lost count of the fire arms just in our house alone.

In SA, violence is a way of life. As is unemployment, corruption, a lack of infrastructure and education, and many many hundreds of thousands of desperate people. Living there could be pretty scary. Most people have at least guns for home defense, but it doesn't stop the problem. And attempts at gun control have done only one thing, make law abiding citizens more vulnerable. When I lived there (for around 20 years) I drew a gun 4 times in my own defense. Luckily, I only had to shoot once. Ive had guns drawn by family in our defense.

In New Zealand, a much smaller, quieter country with high rates of employment, social services, excellent infrastructure and a world class education system (one of the biggest "exports" of the country incidentally) there is far less violence (statistically, accounting for the population difference) and is on the whole a very tolerant and diverse culture. The country does lean slightly towards a socialist system which has meant that there is never the same level of poverty or desperation as I have seen in other countries (and I'm very well traveled) and sure, there are those who dont like it, and those who take advantage, but its the minority. Living there was a very peaceful experience. Yes there is racial tension, yes there is crime and yes there is violence, but on such a scale that it still makes headline news and people are still shocked and outraged by it. I recall a single gun related death not long before I left that was in the news for weeks on end with people thoroughly alarmed.

Here, well.... I sometimes feel like the USA is so unbelievably large and its issues so deeply rooted and complex that its hard to know where to start. But I think gun control isn't THE answer. In the sense of limiting the damage that people like that young man in CS can do, yes. I'm all for limiting access to fire arms through licensing, registration, tracking, and psych evaluations prior to ownership. But its a band aid, not a cure. And criminals, last I checked, do not obey the law, so stricter control is unlikely to dissuade someone who is determined to have one, from accessing a gun.

The bigger questions is why is there so much emotional and mental instability in people here that this mass gun killing thing is even a thing? Why do people feel they need to murder others to be heard, to be avenged, to be seen, to matter? Violence is about power. And having been interested in the patterns of violence here for many years, all I see is people who feel powerless, and use guns to change that.

Maybe if we spent more time investigating this aspect of the issue rather than trotting out "gun control" each time, we might make some headway with actually resolving the "why" instead of trying to control the "how".


just my own thoughts.

Brenna wrote :

The bigger questions is why is there so much emotional and mental instability in people here that this mass gun killing thing is even a thing? Why do people feel they need to murder others to be heard, to be avenged, to be seen, to matter? Violence is about power. And having been interested in the patterns of violence here for many years, all I see is people who feel powerless, and use guns to change that.

Maybe if we spent more time investigating this aspect of the issue rather than trotting out "gun control" each time, we might make some headway with actually resolving the "why" instead of trying to control the "how".


just my own thoughts.

... keep thinking like that too, lass !

Locksley, Brenna's right. One needs to look at many other economic, cultural and even historical contexts in relation to hegemonic motives for firearm possession. In a more Rawlsian perspective, one would find that the more "meritocratic" a society, the more the division of 'empowered' and 'disempowered' becomes blatant, although possibly (probably, even) with some distortion. Violence, by any means - guns or not - seems to be also in direct proportion to suicide rates.

In short, a stressful society and gunpowder make for a bad mix. Even if one injures or kills someone in self-defence, that is still suffering that probably could have been alleviated by just a little more Justice rather than more 'law'.

a firearm is like any other tool....it just exists, what results from it's use is totally dependent upon the one using it...should we ban hammers when someone bashes a person's head in with one? should we ban axes (which are just as abundant and more readily accessible) because lizzie borden butchered her parents with one? how about kitchen knives? they're everywhere, don't make any noise and just as lethal....as brenna pointed out, banning guns will simply result in the law abiding citizens being more easily victimized as the criminals will still get what they need....at this moment i could get a handful of firearms illegally or i could go through the process of a background check, and waiting period, and the permitting process to legally own one....personally i'll stick to the legal method as it allows me to carry/transport my firearms without issue....

every time an event occurs the knee jerk reaction is to blame the tool, not the one using it...how bout placing the blame where it belongs on the individuals shoulders that committed the act...the event in south carolina was the result of someone with mental weakness buying into some disgusting archaic indoctrination....the southern u.s. (southeastern in specific) is filled with intolerant bigots that spew racial,homophobic,and sexist propaganda....the majority of which is from ignorant intolerance....

i'm all for regulation....mental health evaluations, training, background checks, licensing etc....

i'm against any sort of bans....the criminals will always be better armed than law enforcement....it's like that in any country....it's only fair for survival that the honest law abiding citizens be able to defend themselves equally....especially since law enforcement can't always be trusted to have our best interest in mind

RyuJin wrote: ...should we ban hammers when someone bashes a person's head in with one?

This really happened at my apartment once. We were playing Everquest....2? I think...When we heard screaming and chaos explode outside and just down the street. Mindas went to check it out. Two Drunk dudes "Wanted to know what would happen if the one guy hit the other guy with a claw hammer" yea....Claws went Thunk...Yeeeea.....not a pretty picture. Anyways.

That is all I will participate in this thread. I am fully and completely against Gun Control....so I have no defense for it. Just wanted to strengthen Ryu's argument here. *bows*

I appreciate the replies everyone. I'm hopeful more will decide to chime in!

Again, I'd love to have sources, and links to anything anyone has read on the subject that they think is interesting.

Incidentally, while I'm not going to go into the subject of my position on this topic here, I definitely agree that there may be other factors involved in the topic, and if you want to create an argument based around other factors that still focuses on this issue, please go ahead. I'd also love to see arguments from people who support any angles of the debate - especially those which attempt to contradict personal viewpoints and opinions. Basically, feel free to go for it.