Come On, Humanity.

Mexico has one of the biggest drug problems in the world
So does Panama
Brazil is actually very corrupt
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34255590

 

Yes. But as I recall you said corrupt African countries.

America is also extremely corrupt. One easy way to see that is to look at its rigged economy. Is that a factor to poverty/unrest and subsequent gun violence? I feel like I've said this before...

Also the mere presence of guns does not cause mass shootings among other instances of violent crime.

 

Oh, I do apologize for mis wording my intent. I suppose that does indeed make my entire argument false.

Sure, the American economy is rigged. Sure, this can lead to gun violence.

So why, pray tell, do we ENABLE these people frustrated with America and killers to just walk to the nearest gun store, pick up a gun, and kill 20 people?

 

Not at all. It just makes your statement false.

MYTH 2: "The only purpose of a handgun is to kill people."

Spoiler

This often repeated statement is patently untrue, but to those Americans whose only knowledge of firearms comes from the nightly violence on television, it might seem believable. When anti-gun researcher James Wright, then of the University of Massachusetts, studied all the available literature on firearms, he concluded: "Even the most casual and passing familiarity with this literature is therefore sufficient to believe the contention that handguns have `no legitimate sport or recreational use.' "
There are an estimated 65-70 million privately owned handguns in the United States that are used for hunting, target shooting, protection of families and businesses, and other legitimate and lawful purposes. By comparison, handguns were used in an estimated 13,200 homicides in 1992 --less than 0.02% (two hundredths of 1%) of the handguns in America. Many of these reported homicides (1,500-2,800) were self-defense or justifiable and, therefore, not criminal. That fact alone renders the myth about the "only purpose" of handguns absurd, for more than 99% of all handguns are used for no criminal purpose.

By far the most commonly cited reason for owning a handgun is protection against criminals. At least one-half of handgun owners in America own handguns for protection and security. A handgun's function is one of insurance as well as defense. A handgun in the home is a contingency, based on the knowledge that if there ever comes a time when it is needed, no substitute will do. Certainly no violent intent is implied, any more than a purchaser of life insurance intends to die soon.

MYTH 8: "The righ t guaranteed under the Second Amendment is limited specifically to the arming of a `well-regulated Militia' that can be compared today to the National Guard."

Spoiler

The Second Amendment reads: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the se curity of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In contrast to other portions of the Constitution, this Amendment contains no qualifiers, no "buts" or "excepts." It is a straightforward statement affirming t he people's right to possess firearms.

The perception that the Second Amendment guarantees a "collective right" or a "right of states to form militias" rather than an individual right is a wholly inaccurate 20th-century invention. Historically, the term "militia" refers to the people at large, armed and ready to defend their homeland and their freedom with arms supplied by themselves (U.S. v. Miller, 1939). Federal law (Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code) states:

"The militia of the Unit ed States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age...." Moreover, historical records, including Constitutional Convention debates and the Federalist Papers, clearly indicate that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to guard against t he tyranny that the Framers of the Constitution feared could be perpetrated by any professional armed body of government. The arms, records and ultimate control of the National Guard today lie with the Federal Government, so that it clearly is not the "mi litia" protected from the federal government.

The Supreme Court recently affirmed this virtually unlimited control of the Guard by the federal government in the case of Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990). The Court held that the power of Congr ess over the National Guard is plenary (entire, absolute, unlimited) and such power is not restricted by the Constitution's Militia Clause. The Second Amendment was not even mentioned by the Court, undoubtedly because it does not serve as a source of powe r for a state to have a National Guard.

In The Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton argued that the army would always be a "select corps of moderate size" and that the "people at large (were) properly armed" to serve as a fundamental check against the standing army, the most dreaded of institutions. James Madison, in The Federalist No. 46, noted that unlike the governments of Europe which were "afraid to trust the people with arms," the American people would continue under the new Constitution to possess "the advantage of being armed," and thereby would continually be able to form the militia when needed as a "barrier against the enterprises of despotic ambition."

A 1990 Supreme Court decision regarding searches and seizures confirmed that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, held by "the people"--a term of art employed in the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments referring to all "persons who are part of a national community" (U.S. v. Verdu go-Urquidez, 1990).

The case of U.S. v. Miller (1939) is frequently, though erroneously, cited as the definitive ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is a "collective" right, protecting the right of states to keep a militia rather than the i ndividual right to possess arms. But that was not the issue in Miller, and no such ruling was made; the word "collective" is not used any place in the court's decision.

While such a decision was sought by the Justice Department, the Court decided o nly that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was constitutional in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The case hinged on the narrow question of whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use, and its ownership by individuals thus protected b y the Second Amendment.

The Court ruled that: "In the absence of (the presentation of) any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a `shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relati onship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice--common knowledge, that need not be proven i n court--that this weapon is any part of the military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Because no evidence or argument was presented except by the federal government, the Court was not made aware that some 30,000 short-barreled shotguns were used as "trench guns" during World War I.

The Supreme Court has ruled on only three other cases relating to the Second Amendment--all during the last half of the nineteenth century. In each of these cases, the Court held that the Second Amendment only restricted actions of the federal government, not of private individuals (U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1876) or state governments (Presser v. Illinois, 1886, and Miller v. Texas, 1894). The Court also held, in Presser, that the Firs t Amendment guarantee of freedom of assembly did not apply to the states; and in Miller v. Texas, it held that the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure did not apply to the states, since the Court believed that all the amendm ents comprising the Bill of Rights were limitations solely on the powers of Congress, not upon the powers of the states.

It was not until two generations later that the Court began to rule, through the Fourteenth Amendment, that the First, Fourth, and other provisions of the Bill of Rights limited both Congress and state legislatures. No similar decision concerning the Second Amendment has ever been made in spite of contemporary scholarship proving that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was t o apply all of the rights in the Bill of Rights to the states.12 That research proves that the Fourteenth Amendment was made a part of the Constitution to prevent states from depriving the newly freed slaves of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights , including what the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision referred to as one of the rights of citizens, the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

The only significance of the Supreme Court's refusal to hear a challenge to the hand- gun ban imposed by Morton Grove, Illinois, is that the Court will still not rush to apply the Second Amendment to the states. The refusal to hear the case has no legal significance and, indeed, it would have been very unusual for the Court to make a decision involving the U.S. Constitution when the Illinois courts had not yet decided if Morton Grove's ban conflicted with the state's constitution.

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

 

Ban guns? Do guns cause people to kill other people?
No, its a select few who know its wrong but do not care about their actions.
Stricter regulations for gun owners should be in place, but not complete removal of gun rights.
If killings and shootings we
But while we're at it, lets remove alcohol from store shelves and teach boys not to rape, cuz ya know, apparently its not obvious enough that rape is wrong and intoxication puts people in danger.
On topic: If the whole of humanity cared, something would have been done.
But its never gonna happen as long as humans control everything.
(Robo-Overlords 2016)

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you not JUST say that poverty and wage gaps cause anger which causes gun violence? I simply asked why we were enabling that and you go NOPE NOPE GUNS ARENT USED TO KILL PEOPLE NOPE NOPE NOPE. You have contradicted yourself it seems m8

 

There's been a lot of arguing on this thread over gun laws, but here's the bottom line. We have nearly no mass-shootings in New Zealand compared to America, even accounting for population difference. I've never held a gun. Most people I know have never held a gun. Most people I know who have held a gun are those who are perfectly sane, use the gun for hunting, and it's perfectly safe and supervised.

Humanity created this killing machine, and while most other first-world countries decided to regulate it to avoid mass shootings, America decided that its citizens have a right to bear arms, a.k.a to use this killing machine. It's like nuclear weapons, but on a smaller scale. Very few countries currently have nuclear weapons, but if you use the same logic...

AnyRandomCountryWithoutNuclearWeapons: Russia and the U.S.A have nuclear weapons so that puts me at risk. I don't care how many people could be killed, I want nuclear weapons too!

Gun control works. Really it does. It works in Australia, New Zealand, and most of Europe. But you Americans have this idea that you're different, you embrace democracy and freedom so it simply CAN'T work in your country. Guess what? Most other countries in Europe also embrace democracy and freedom, you've just have this idea force-fed to you since you were a kid that your country is the greatest in the world and is the home of liberty. By the way, this is a generalization.

So what would really happen if guns were taken away in America and only those who have had thorough background checks done can use them for hunting? Some guns would still get in, but mass-shooting rates would drop, homicide rates would drop. Some people claim they need guns to protect themselves, but those they seek to protect themselves from will soon find it very hard to get guns.

Will it be guns for all or guns for very few, in such a way that it doesn't have a huge impact on America? I know which one I'd choose. One last thing to think about. If a woman carrying a gun for protection is ambushed by a man trying to assault her, and she pulls the gun on him, it is statistically more likely he will take the gun from her and use it than she will actually injure him/get him to back off using it. With a lack of gun laws are you protecting yourselves, or are you giving yourselves a reason to be protected?

 

Oh boy, this is going to be fun.

Part of the problem is that people have figured out that shootings are the most effective way to kill a lot of people in a short time, and with it gain a truckload of media attention. Commiting a mass shooting is now a way to become instantly famous, or rather infamous. It's because the media makes a total spectacle of it, and in the end the shooter wins because he got exactly what he wanted. If we wouldn't give these violent people so much attention, this wouldn't be happening on what seems like a weekly basis.

Also keep in mind that total gun control won't work in the US just because it works in the EU. The US is a completely different country, and "there are more guns" isn't the only reason why this **** happens. Take Iceland for example. They have a very high gun ownership per capita, yet a very low crime rate. Why? Well for one, they have a very homogenous population, so there isn't very much race conflict (unlike America). Two, Iceland is an island, so they don't have a large border with another violent country that has a problems with drug gangs. I am going to say that yes, Iceland does have very strict gun control laws. But keep in mind the high gun ownership per capita. So many people are able to get firearms under strict regulations because people in Iceland aren't very violent.

The problem in America isn't the guns, it's the people. Remember that thing you keep hearing about how guns don't kill people, people kill people? Yeah I'm talking about that. This all being said I think guns in America should be more regulated, to keep them out of the hands of general idiots/irresponsible people, you know, the kind of people that would commit mass shootings. But at no point should guns be banned or severely over-regulated. People have the right to defend themselves. You might think, "well if we ban guns, you won't need a gun to defend yourself, because no one else would have a gun." What if someone draws a knife on you in your home? If you have a gun, then your attacker just brought a knife to a gunfight. There are also various other reasons for having a gun. Some people use them for hunting/sport. For some people guns are their hobby, like video games are mine. This is part of what living in a "free country" is supposed to mean.

I would like to say more, especially about why the second amendment is so important, but Admiral_Munson summed a lot of it up already.

TL;DR Although America could use better gun laws, there is a lot more to think about than how many guns a country has, and banning guns is not the solution.

 

Yes I said they were factors.

No I didn't. But nice job completely misconstructing what I said.

What I was saying, which you apparently missed, is that the only purpose of guns is not to kill people. That actually answers your question as to why we give people guns - like rifles - in America, for hunting and a variety of other things. As to why we give people semi automatic guns, I can't imagine, and that is why stronger gun legislation is needed, but not a ban.

 

You definitely said that poverty breeds violence

So why should we make it easy for those frustrated with the government to simply go and pick up a gun with the intent of killing someone? Sure, not all guns are used for killing, but in Baltimore City, which is near where I live, 291 of the 316 murders this year came from gun violence.

http://chamspage.blogspot.com/2014/12/2015-baltimore-city-homicidesmurders.html

 

Yes, meaning that it is a factor to the numerous things that cause these horrible mass shootings. If you had read my original response to MrCowlick's post I listed it as a factor.

Did I ever say we should make it 'easy for someone to kill someone else'? All I'm against is full on gun control or gun removal if you like and I do not understand why you keep misrepresenting what I'm saying by cherry picking quotes.

 

I could go to the store, pick up a gun, and kill someone in less than 20 minutes

The motive to kill is usually longer than 20 minutes

That ain't right

 

And he's arguing that while this should not be a possibility, it's not an argument that sufficiently explains why we should get rid of all guns.

 

Gun control is a topic I am pretty passionate about, and very open to debate, but I would like to address all the comments here from my opinion and would love a rebuttal from you guys. I just think as the vast majority of people have never really thought deeply into this whole arguement, none the less owned or used a gun of their own, or been to a gun club showcasing the vast amount of responsible gun owning folks, it is quite likely that your views are skewed and bias, not by choice, merely due to the bs news reports, and common (yet false) beliefs. Lets begin shall we?

Well, to say we should arm every disabled person with a firearm is not the solution. Mental dissablities are leading factor in most all the mass shootings that happen in the US, the fact is very few are done in the name of terror or religion, and most are done by mentally ill people who no longer have a mental understanding of others and do not see it as ending another life, but just taking people with them into death, as most people go into a shooting expecting to be taken out in a body bag. BUT, as you said, the best solution is arming the majority of the population, and training the 99% of normal people, and they can easily defend against the 1%. Essentially imagine this scene from its always sunny in philedelphia, this episode satires both points of views on gun control, but I find this both comical and rather accurate.

.

The basic answer, mental illness. As I mentioned above, most shootings occur from people with mental illness, and they fail to recognize other peoples lives as a real thing, their views are very egocentric (self centered) in that they don't realize they are taking the lives from actual people, they just see them as players in a video game so to speak, they don't feel resent for killing. The issue really lies in our healthcare system, in that mental illness is not being treated as a serious issue. The healthcare thinks lets let them out alone, tell them to take meds, and forget them. The fact is many people will not take these meds without somone enforcing it. It's human nature, we don't want to be told how to live, and these meds are what keep them balanced, and without taking them they're dangerous. This is why many people are never actually treated.

Refer to what I said above. I do agree the background checks are important, but other than that clip size and gun type don't matter. How many of the criminals do you think get legal guns?? Very, VERY few, so limiting the public does nothing because criminals just bypass the legal route and get what they want, so why limit the majority of responsible folk, it's not going to effect the criminals at all other than guarantee them there will be no Resistance against their actions.

Look at what I said above. Also, why do you think the vast majority of shooting happen at schools and hospitals? Because they're guartenteed to have no resistance. No one has a gun at school or in a hospital, so they're free to shoot who ever they want without being shot back. This is the issue, not gun laws. As @Admiral_Munson pointed out, their are much, MUCH higher gun related homicide rates across the world. And this source is also pretty misleading. Look at Isreal, you expect me to believe with that turmoil in the middle east they have almost no gun related deaths? HA. no. And do you really think criminals/maniacs obtain guns legally? Hell no! Guns will get into this country with or without gun bans, you think laws can prevent the shipment of guns into the US? It is completely impossible to keep something out of the country if someone wants to get it in. Case one: Drugs. Cocaine is illegal, is it still here? YES! So obviously bans don't work, and criminals don't follow the laws [What a novel idea huh? (IE Gun bans)]. A gun ban won't do anything other than take guns out of the hands of people who need them for protection. CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW LAWS and a gun ban WON'T KEEP CRIMINALS FROM GETTING GUNS. That's really all there is to it, its just naive to think other wise, I wish we were in a world that simple, but were not.

Look above please, I don't want to retype all my stuff haha.

Not bad.

Well, that was fun. I hope I opened some eyes to different POV's behind this debate. Let me hear your rebuttals, I would love to continue a conversation if it helps spread some knowledge.

 

I love you. <3

(no homo I swear)

 

1. Your claim that most criminals get their guns illegally seems extremely unlikely. I would like to see a source on that.

2. Regarding mental illness: How do you expect to blame shootings on mental illness when I guarantee that all other counties in the world have people that are mentally ill too?

3. If the argument against gun restriction is that people will still break the law and obtain them, why have traffic laws? Why have any laws?

4. You claim that most mass shootings take place in hospitals and schools. It may seem like this because of the mere quantity, but I don't believe this at all. 291 shootings have occurred in Baltimore City alone THIS YEAR. I don't think there have been 291 shootings in schools. They just get more media attention, which leads you to believe that. Understandable, but nevertheless false.

5. Regarding gun type and clip size: Are you honestly telling me that a Glock with a 5 bullet clip size is just the same as a Klashnikov with a 32 round clip size? This entire part makes absolutely no sense.

6. Regarding mental illness healthcare: So, I assume you are in full support of Obamacare? Cool!

7. Regarding criminals who will get guns no matter what: Your statement seems to be incredibly twisted. Sure, mental health illness contributes to killings. However, most mentally ill people are not cold-blooded killers. The majority of gun-related killings are spur of the moment, anger-derived homocides. See my previous link on the Baltimore City killings and just read a few of the descriptions. Therefore, we should work to prevent the accessibility of guns, so such spontaneous killings which are undoubtedly regretted days later, no? It's only logical to stop these types of anger-related murders, and that's pretty hard to argue against.

Final point: You said it yourself: Most shootings are not done in the name of terror. That is certainly correct and I agree fully with you. I do disagree that mentally ill are as big a part as you say, but nevertheless, I have one thing to say. Can you honestly tell me that you do not believe the number of gun-related deaths would go down if we prevented mentally ill from constantly having that Magnum in their back pocket, ready to use at a single moment? If what you say is true, which I believe it to be so, that mentally ill contribute to gun-related killings, how does it make the slightest bit of sense to allow those who are unable to make medical decisions for THEMSELVES to own and constantly carry a weapon that could end the lives of practically anyone instantly?

I think at this point we argue the degree to which action must be taken. I believe that guns can be allowed and their use can be positive, but it should be EXTREMELY hard to legally obtain one. Only those who have undergone very in depth mental health screening and are a member of the NRA should even be considered to own a gun. You are giving away a killing machine and that SHOULD NOT be treated as lightly as it is.

 

Very well said.

I agree that actions need to be taken to reduce the epidemic of shootings going on in the US.

Not buying the whole mental illness to blame thing, that sounds like FOX (Faux) news spin fed to them by gun lobbies.

Just for the record, I am not a hippie liberal and I think we need real answers. I shoot guns and like them but I think we need a new legislative approach.

I live in Colorado and I do not live that far from Columbine (the school shooting), the Aurora movie theater shooting and now the shooting in Colorado Springs at the planned parenthood clinic.

Enough is enough.

 

1.) You think criminals buy guns legally? Really? If you want me to think you know what your talking about, please recite to me the operation of a pregun purchase background check. You really think criminals are buying guns legally with a beackground check? I find it hard to believe that you actually think that. Source: http://gun.laws.com/illegal-guns/illegal-guns-statistics

2.) One word: Healthcare. As I said, healthcare in the us seems to push off mentally ill patients and make it very simple to disobey doctors orders for medication. Do a little reading here and see the flaws in our system: http://www.nami.org/Blogs/NAMI-Blog/March-2015/How-Do-We-Fix-America’s-Mental-Health-Care-System

3.) Your traffic laws argument is strong BUT, I never claimed we should remove them, OR gun laws. I merely said we should not ban guns. Reminder, cocaine is illegal in the us. It still gets in. So will weapons.

4.) You said "Mass shootings" a one person murder is not a mass shooting. There are not 291 MASS SHOOTINGS in Baltimore city. That was a poorly set up argument. Again, the MASS SHOOTINGS do occur in buildings like schools and hospitals that ban fire arms. I merely said schools and hospitals because they'rethe most well known buildings with no fire arms allowed, concealed or carried.

5.) It takes one bullet to kill. Not to mention, neither the glock or the Kalashnikov (AK for those who don't know) use clips, they use mags. A clip is a piece of steel that bullets get threaded into, no modern fire arms use clips. I feel like the fact I need to address that makes me doubt your knowledge on fire arms. But yes, one bullet to kill is all the same weather there are 5 bullets or 32. You can carry plenty of mags to hold the bullets you want to use.

6.) You assume because I think the mental healthcare system is flawed, I must be a fan in full support of Obamacare? Quite the opposite I hate Obamacare, but do believe the current system needs to be adjusted. Your correlation and conclusion that just because the current system is flawed, I must support Obamacare is a false correlation and makes me question your logic. That's like saying sense you don't like pizza you must LOVE the vegan movement. The connection isn't there because the statement about me not liking one thing is a non-derogitive statement, meaning it doesn't define a do, only a do-not, so it's illogical to draw a do conclusion from that statement. Again, I question your logic.

7.) There is no such thing as a "spur of the moment killing". That't not a thing. No one is walking down the street and thinks "I want to kill" and a gun magically shows up in there pocket. It is a preconceived action, they get the gun, bring it on out, find a victim, and kill them. Not walking down the street, a gun appears, and they kill someone.

8.) I never said we should remove the current gun laws, If I did it was for rhetorical puposes only. I believe restrictions are neccissary, and I would even say yes, lets make it harder to get a gun. But banning guns will not help, in any way. But yes, lets make it harder to get guns, because in the end, it will help reduce the amount of idiots or ill people with guns. I will say, a lot of shootings happen as a result of a mentally ill person having access to a parents, or relatives gun, this is an issue for sure. There also needs to be a teaching of gun safety and gun responsibility before we can trust the public with guns. But yes, all in all, we should make it harder to get guns, make more safety and responsibility courses, but not ban guns.

If you agree with the logic, re read what he said and refer to my analysis, the logic is flawed. Many many false connections being made, and illogical assumptions. And I am glad to hear you are a gun owner and shooter yourself, good for you. I will say though, I agree things need to be done and changed, but banning guns is not the answer. I personally believe the reason many sources say "most shooters haven't been diagnosed as mentally ill" is due to the fact our healthcare system doesn't treat mental illness as it does many other illnesses, and its not commonly diagnosed.


Nice debate gentlemen,
I want to make sure you guys know I have no heard feelings and don't mean any disrespect. I love debates and love arguing, everything I say is for the sake of expressing my point of view, and hopefully informing others of the facts behind the US and Gun Violence (both your facts and mine, its up to the reader to decide). Lets keep this going! Nice rebuttal @C9_Mango . It is my job as your opponent to tear apart your argument as much as I can, I mean to disrespect, you have a good argument, but I must address any logical fallacies I find. Your point of view and opinions are as good as anyone's, and I respect your point of view.

 

As a guy born and raised in New York, I am embarrassed to be an American.

 

As I guy born and raised in England sometimes I'm embarrassed to live in America but I do =/