[totallackey]

If I want to own a semi-automatic gun, I should be able to own a semi-automatic gun.

Why should you?

Because what I own is none of your business.

And how far does that extend? Do you believe one should be able to own any form of weapon?

In general, yes.

When did society commence to think there is such a thing as nirvana while alive?

Or that things are all cuddly and nice and no dangers exist.

Look, the governments exercising control over the bombs now cannot seem to decide to never use them irresponsibly. Almost 20 years of BS Wars fought to protect the monied interests of big oil and big pharma and illicit narcotics trade worldwide, and you think I would somehow be less responsible of an owner?

I don't think so...

[TomInAustin]

Glad you brought up knives.

Handguns are the type of weapon preferred by murders by far...

Tell that to the families of the dead who died in the rash of knife attacks in the UK.

[AATW]

You are correct. Not everyone is that responsible.

I am.

Says who? You? Can you see a flaw in a system where people just decide for themselves whether they're responsible or not?

And I don't need you or someone else telling me I cannot own what I want to own.

You literally just agreed that not everyone is responsible. Therefore, not everyone should be able to own powerful weapons*
So yes, you absolutely do need a system where "someone else" tells you what you can or cannot own.
And what if you're responsible now but then develop some mental illness. Is there any system in place to check up on people?
(*personally I don't think anyone should)

Actually, not that hard to answer.
"Criminologist and researcher Gary Kleck, using his own commissioned phone surveys and number extrapolation, estimates that Americans use guns for defensive purposes 1.2 million times each year — and that 1 in 6 Americans who have used guns defensively believe someone would have died but for their ability to resort to their defensive use of firearms." -comes out to roughly 200,000 US lives saved per year.

You initially said no-one knows the answer, now you've done a Google and found this and suddenly it's "not that hard" to answer.
Can you seriously not see the flaw in the argument above? The only reason a "good guy" would need a gun is that the "bad guy" probably has a gun.
So if these guns are "saving lives" those lives are only in danger in the first place because guns are so readily available.
Wouldn't it be better to take out guns of both sides of the equation?
Sure, black market blah blah blah but personally I'd have no idea how to get a gun in the UK even if I wanted to. Partly because I don't mix in "those circles" but while something being illegal doesn't mean it isn't available, it's obviously going to be harder and more expensive to get a gun if they're illegal.

What is to prevent a person from simply grabbing a a car and motoring these people down?

Well, in big cities they often have concrete blocks strategically placed to mitigate that but yes, it can and has happened.
But cars are not intended to harm people. They can be used for that purpose, sure, but it's not their primary function.
Literally the only function of a gun is to wound or kill. No-one should own a weapon that can kill 9 people and injure 27 within 30 seconds.
There is no good purpose for that weapon.

Apprehend the perpetrators, kill them if they cannot be apprehended

That's what was done in Ohio. With commendable efficiency. Still managed to kill 9 people and injure 27.

reinstitute the National programs on mental health and substance abuse.

OK, that makes more sense.

Explain Switzerland?

https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/switzerland-high-gun-ownership?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2

Though Swiss gun ownership remains fairly high for Europe — there are about 27.5 guns for every 100 people in Switzerland — compared to the United States, it's relatively low — for every 100 Americans, there are about 120.5 guns. Whereas the U.S. has nearly 12 deaths per 100,000, Switzerland has around 7.
Considering the discrepancy between U.S. and Swiss gun ownership, that lesser number may be directly attributable to the number of guns in circulation.

Switzerland has mandatory military service for able-bodied adult men, and women may volunteer for military service as well. Mandatory conscription is actually extremely popular in Switzerland, with 73 percent of Swiss citizens voting against a referendum to abolish the practice. After their military service, the Swiss are kept in reserve until age 30–34, if they were an officer — during which time they must keep their service weapon. As a result, many Swiss people own firearms and are highly trained in their use by default. In contrast, if a U.S. citizen lives in a particularly permissive state, they can buy a gun without any kind of training whatsoever.

Furthermore, Swiss civilians must demonstrate that they are physically, intellectually, and mentally capable prior to conscription in the army (source in French). While this is a requirement for service in the U.S. military, it is not required for gun ownership in many states in America.

Technically, American federal law does prohibit the severely mentally ill from purchasing firearms, but the implementation of this ban is poor. The federal background check system is severely understaffed and underfunded, and records on prospective gun buyers' mental conditions are typically incomplete or absent even if a court had previously found them to be unwell. Dylann Roof, who fired upon a church in Charleston, South Carolina, should have failed his background check, but was able to buy his .45 caliber Glock anyways. In contrast, some Swiss police may ask for a certificate from a psychiatrist prior to approving a gun license, which is required before buying most kinds of guns in Switzerland.

Pro-gun advocates in the U.S. often point to Switzerland to prove that high gun ownership doesn't necessarily mean high gun deaths. However, Switzerland has a wildly different regulatory environment and — perhaps most importantly — culture than the US.

[Lord Dave]

Norway has a high gun ownership too but its mostly handguns and hunting rifles.

[totallackey]

You are correct. Not everyone is that responsible.

I am.

Says who? You?

Yep.

Me.

Can you see a flaw in a system where people just decide for themselves whether they're responsible or not?

There are flaws in any human system, so I am unsure of your point.

And I don't need you or someone else telling me I cannot own what I want to own.

You literally just agreed that not everyone is responsible. Therefore, not everyone should be able to own powerful weapons*

When people demonstrate irresponsibility, then of course they became restricted.

I run a bunch of red lights or speed in an auto, I get my license to drive taken away.

Prior to that, I am granted a license to drive and keep the license.

When I demonstrate irresponsibility here, I become restricted.

Until then, free to roam and own.

So yes, you absolutely do need a system where "someone else" tells you what you can or cannot own.

We have it, and I was never arguing against that.

And what if you're responsible now but then develop some mental illness. Is there any system in place to check up on people?
(*personally I don't think anyone should)

Yes.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commentary/fl-op-viewpoint-ted-deutch-jake-laird-law-20180509-story.html

Actually, not that hard to answer.
"Criminologist and researcher Gary Kleck, using his own commissioned phone surveys and number extrapolation, estimates that Americans use guns for defensive purposes 1.2 million times each year — and that 1 in 6 Americans who have used guns defensively believe someone would have died but for their ability to resort to their defensive use of firearms." -comes out to roughly 200,000 US lives saved per year.

You initially said no-one knows the answer, now you've done a Google and found this and suddenly it's "not that hard" to answer.
Can you seriously not see the flaw in the argument above? The only reason a "good guy" would need a gun is that the "bad guy" probably has a gun.
So if these guns are "saving lives" those lives are only in danger in the first place because guns are so readily available.
Wouldn't it be better to take out guns of both sides of the equation?

How?

Sure, black market blah blah blah but personally I'd have no idea how to get a gun in the UK even if I wanted to. Partly because I don't mix in "those circles" but while something being illegal doesn't mean it isn't available, it's obviously going to be harder and more expensive to get a gun if they're illegal.

You have zero support for that statement as evidenced by the data.

The criminals here are much more skilled than you or I in obtaining weapons.

Hell, we even had our own beloved AG helping them out in Fast and Furious.

The US had an "assault weapons," ban. According to FBI data, it didn't work.

What is to prevent a person from simply grabbing a a car and motoring these people down?

Well, in big cities they often have concrete blocks strategically placed to mitigate that but yes, it can and has happened.
But cars are not intended to harm people. They can be used for that purpose, sure, but it's not their primary function.
Literally the only function of a gun is to wound or kill. No-one should own a weapon that can kill 9 people and injure 27 within 30 seconds.
There is no good purpose for that weapon.

Yeah, there is.

That is why police have them.

Apprehend the perpetrators, kill them if they cannot be apprehended

That's what was done in Ohio. With commendable efficiency. Still managed to kill 9 people and injure 27.

Yes.

Sad.

Unfortunately, you cannot prevent all bad things from happening.

reinstitute the National programs on mental health and substance abuse.

OK, that makes more sense.

Explain Switzerland?

https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/switzerland-high-gun-ownership?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2

Though Swiss gun ownership remains fairly high for Europe — there are about 27.5 guns for every 100 people in Switzerland — compared to the United States, it's relatively low — for every 100 Americans, there are about 120.5 guns. Whereas the U.S. has nearly 12 deaths per 100,000, Switzerland has around 7.
Considering the discrepancy between U.S. and Swiss gun ownership, that lesser number may be directly attributable to the number of guns in circulation.

It is attributable to the factual statement that guns don't kill people.

People kill people.

Switzerland has mandatory military service for able-bodied adult men, and women may volunteer for military service as well. Mandatory conscription is actually extremely popular in Switzerland, with 73 percent of Swiss citizens voting against a referendum to abolish the practice. After their military service, the Swiss are kept in reserve until age 30–34, if they were an officer — during which time they must keep their service weapon. As a result, many Swiss people own firearms and are highly trained in their use by default. In contrast, if a U.S. citizen lives in a particularly permissive state, they can buy a gun without any kind of training whatsoever.

Furthermore, Swiss civilians must demonstrate that they are physically, intellectually, and mentally capable prior to conscription in the army (source in French). While this is a requirement for service in the U.S. military, it is not required for gun ownership in many states in America.

Technically, American federal law does prohibit the severely mentally ill from purchasing firearms, but the implementation of this ban is poor. The federal background check system is severely understaffed and underfunded, and records on prospective gun buyers' mental conditions are typically incomplete or absent even if a court had previously found them to be unwell. Dylann Roof, who fired upon a church in Charleston, South Carolina, should have failed his background check, but was able to buy his .45 caliber Glock anyways. In contrast, some Swiss police may ask for a certificate from a psychiatrist prior to approving a gun license, which is required before buying most kinds of guns in Switzerland.

Pro-gun advocates in the U.S. often point to Switzerland to prove that high gun ownership doesn't necessarily mean high gun deaths. However, Switzerland has a wildly different regulatory environment and — perhaps most importantly — culture than the US.

Yes, they do have a different culture.

One that demonstrates that cultural change in the US is necessary.

Not the elimination of weapons .

Not risk aversion.

When I grew up, I could go to school and have my rifle and shotgun in a rack displayed in the back window of my pickup.

I could walk down the street with my shotgun and rifle on my way to my friend's house to go hunting.

What has changed is the culture of the US.

Instant gratification is deadlier than anything else in the world.

[AATW]

When people demonstrate irresponsibility, then of course they became restricted.
I run a bunch of red lights or speed in an auto, I get my license to drive taken away.
Prior to that, I am granted a license to drive and keep the license.
When I demonstrate irresponsibility here, I become restricted.
Until then, free to roam and own.

Sounds like a good system. The dude in Ohio...well, he's dead now but were he alive I bet they'd revoke his licence.
He certainly demonstrated irresponsibility. Sure, he killed 9 people and wounded 27 but don't worry, he won't be doing that again.
The system works!
Stop me if you see the problem here...

Yeah, there is.
That is why police have them.

The police have a specific job which does necessitate firearms in certain situations. Even some police in the UK have firearms. But they are well trained in their usage.
No-one needs a weapon that powerful in their home. Wants, maybe. Needs, no.

Unfortunately, you cannot prevent all bad things from happening.

Correct. But you can and should take measures to make them less likely.

Yes, they do have a different culture.
One that demonstrates that cultural change in the US is necessary.

Vaguely agree with this although I don't really know how you change a culture, a culture grows up organically.

[timterroo]

...
Wouldn't it be better to take out guns of both sides of the equation?
Sure, black market blah blah blah but personally I'd have no idea how to get a gun in the UK even if I wanted to. Partly because I don't mix in "those circles" but while something being illegal doesn't mean it isn't available, it's obviously going to be harder and more expensive to get a gun if they're illegal.

The fact you say you would "have no idea how to get a gun" is why it is a bad idea to convert the legal market into a black market. Just because YOU don't know how to get a gun, doesn't mean criminals won't. That is my whole point in the black market argument and relation to the prohibition of drugs - it simply won't work the way you expect. Drugs are harder and more expensive to get, but drug users seem to have no problem getting them. If guns are harder and more expensive to get, it only means law abiding citizens like you and I will have less access to them - it plays right into the hands of criminals since they will not have any problem getting guns.

If we are trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill, then we need to regulate them, not prohibit them. Prohibiting something removes the states ability to regulate because there won't be anything to regulate - only a crime to punish. There won't be checks and balances, it will be a free, black market.

[totallackey]

When people demonstrate irresponsibility, then of course they became restricted.
I run a bunch of red lights or speed in an auto, I get my license to drive taken away.
Prior to that, I am granted a license to drive and keep the license.
When I demonstrate irresponsibility here, I become restricted.
Until then, free to roam and own.

Sounds like a good system. The dude in Ohio...well, he's dead now but were he alive I bet they'd revoke his licence.
He certainly demonstrated irresponsibility. Sure, he killed 9 people and wounded 27 but don't worry, he won't be doing that again.
The system works!
Stop me if you see the problem here...

We all saw the problem.

Fortunately, we all saw that problem also get shot and killed.

The police have a specific job which does necessitate firearms in certain situations. Even some police in the UK have firearms. But they are well trained in their usage.
No-one needs a weapon that powerful in their home. Wants, maybe. Needs, no.

Police also have automobiles. No one needs a Rolls Royce, so I am unsure of your point.

Unfortunately, you cannot prevent all bad things from happening.

Correct. But you can and should take measures to make them less likely.

We do.

If you look at the numbers, as gun ownership in the US has risen, gun deaths have gone down.

Yes, they do have a different culture.
One that demonstrates that cultural change in the US is necessary.

Vaguely agree with this although I don't really know how you change a culture, a culture grows up organically.

Could use some more background on the statement you offer and how it relates to personal freedom within any culture.

[AATW]

If we are trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill, then we need to regulate them, not prohibit them. Prohibiting something removes the states ability to regulate because there won't be anything to regulate - only a crime to punish. There won't be checks and balances, it will be a free, black market.

Guns are prohibited in many countries and you don't get huge gun crime statistics. Gun control legislation has also demonstrably worked in other countries.
You should regulate them of course, but that won't stop a black market existing if people want to own them "unofficially", so what problem does that solve?
The real issue you guys have is that so many guns are out there in circulation. And very powerful weapons too, more powerful than anyone would reasonably need in their home.
This is not a problem which has an easy fix although better background checks and bans on the more powerful weapons would be a start. I cannot overstate how crazy it seems to most Brits that many of you guys can walk into a shop and buy very powerful weapons with the minimum of fuss.
Agree with lackey about the culture, that's a hard one to change. There aren't many countries where gun culture is so ingrained.

[totallackey]

If we are trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill, then we need to regulate them, not prohibit them. Prohibiting something removes the states ability to regulate because there won't be anything to regulate - only a crime to punish. There won't be checks and balances, it will be a free, black market.

Guns are prohibited in many countries and you don't get huge gun crime statistics. Gun control legislation has also demonstrably worked in other countries.

Those countries also have decidedly different cultures, as we have already discussed and agreed upon.

You should regulate them of course, but that won't stop a black market existing if people want to own them "unofficially", so what problem does that solve?

We do regulate them, as we regulate a considerable amount of things. And as you notice, and as everyone notices, there are still going to be problems.

The real issue you guys have is that so many guns are out there in circulation. And very powerful weapons too, more powerful than anyone would reasonably need in their home.

No.

Because as is shown by factual data, as gun ownership has risen in the US the amount of gun violence has gone down.

This is not a problem which has an easy fix although better background checks and bans on the more powerful weapons would be a start. I cannot overstate how crazy it seems to most Brits that many of you guys can walk into a shop and buy very powerful weapons with the minimum of fuss.

Again, your culture is different.

Agree with lackey about the culture, that's a hard one to change. There aren't many countries where gun culture is so ingrained.

There is a powerful group bent on eroding the very Constitution this country was founded upon, in particular the Bill of Rights.

Fortunately, there is a powerful group bent toward keeping those Bill of Rights safe.

[Rama Set]

No.

Because as is shown by factual data, as gun ownership has risen in the US the amount of gun violence has gone down.

you will have to show some evidence for this because this study shows that owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot and that firearm prevalence increases violent crime.

[AATW]

There is a powerful group bent on eroding the very Constitution this country was founded upon, in particular the Bill of Rights.

Fortunately, there is a powerful group bent toward keeping those Bill of Rights safe.

Your Bill of Rights sucks:

The Bill of Rights seemed to be written in broad language that excluded no one, but in fact, it was not intended to protect all the people - whole groups were left out. Women were second-class citizens, essentially the property of their husbands, unable even to vote until 1920, when the 19th Amendment was passed and ratified.

Native Americans were entirely outside the constitutional system, defined as an alien people in their own land. They were governed not by ordinary American laws, but by federal treaties and statutes that stripped tribes of most of their land and much of their autonomy. The Bill of Rights was in force for nearly 135 years before Congress granted Native Americans U.S. citizenship.

And it was well understood that there was a "race exception" to the Constitution. Slavery was this country's original sin. For the first 78 years after it was ratified, the Constitution protected slavery and legalized racial subordination. Instead of constitutional rights, slaves were governed by "slave codes" that controlled every aspect of their lives. They had no access to the rule of law: they could not go to court, make contracts, or own any property. They could be whipped, branded, imprisoned without trial, and hanged. In short, as one infamous Supreme Court opinion declared: "Blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

(source: https://www.aclu.org/other/bill-rights-brief-history)

Thankfully we live in more enlightened times now and amendments have been made to address some of these issues. The "right to bear arms" comes from the late 18th century, long before powerful weapons were available. It could do with a bit of an update now those powerful weapons are available with the obvious problems they are causing in your country.

[totallackey]

No.

Because as is shown by factual data, as gun ownership has risen in the US the amount of gun violence has gone down.

you will have to show some evidence for this because this study shows that owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot and that firearm prevalence increases violent crime.

https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html

[totallackey]

There is a powerful group bent on eroding the very Constitution this country was founded upon, in particular the Bill of Rights.

Fortunately, there is a powerful group bent toward keeping those Bill of Rights safe.

Your Bill of Rights sucks:

The Bill of Rights seemed to be written in broad language that excluded no one, but in fact, it was not intended to protect all the people - whole groups were left out. Women were second-class citizens, essentially the property of their husbands, unable even to vote until 1920, when the 19th Amendment was passed and ratified.

Native Americans were entirely outside the constitutional system, defined as an alien people in their own land. They were governed not by ordinary American laws, but by federal treaties and statutes that stripped tribes of most of their land and much of their autonomy. The Bill of Rights was in force for nearly 135 years before Congress granted Native Americans U.S. citizenship.

And it was well understood that there was a "race exception" to the Constitution. Slavery was this country's original sin. For the first 78 years after it was ratified, the Constitution protected slavery and legalized racial subordination. Instead of constitutional rights, slaves were governed by "slave codes" that controlled every aspect of their lives. They had no access to the rule of law: they could not go to court, make contracts, or own any property. They could be whipped, branded, imprisoned without trial, and hanged. In short, as one infamous Supreme Court opinion declared: "Blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

(source: https://www.aclu.org/other/bill-rights-brief-history)

Thankfully we live in more enlightened times now and amendments have been made to address some of these issues. The "right to bear arms" comes from the late 18th century, long before powerful weapons were available. It could do with a bit of an update now those powerful weapons are available with the obvious problems they are causing in your country.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and we will agree to disagree, with me remaining thankful they still apply and things becoming more equitable in the greatest nation in the history of man leading the way.

Where millions flee to each year, seeking to better their way of life.

[Rama Set]

No.

Because as is shown by factual data, as gun ownership has risen in the US the amount of gun violence has gone down.

you will have to show some evidence for this because this study shows that owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot and that firearm prevalence increases violent crime.

https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html

this doesn't support your position.  it shows that gun violence has gone down overall, it says nothing about rates of gun ownership rising and it doesn't correlate the two which is what you need for your point to matter.

[totallackey]

No.

Because as is shown by factual data, as gun ownership has risen in the US the amount of gun violence has gone down.

you will have to show some evidence for this because this study shows that owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot and that firearm prevalence increases violent crime.

https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html

this doesn't support your position.  it shows that gun violence has gone down overall, it says nothing about rates of gun ownership rising and it doesn't correlate the two which is what you need for your point to matter.

Gun ownership has risen in the US.

In 2014, the number was estimated at 270 million.

Today that number is estimated to nearly 400 million.

I made a statement:

As gun ownership has risen in the US, gun violence has gone down.

The statement stands as factual.

[Rushy]

Gun ownership rates don't predict the gun violence rates in any country. There's no correlation between guns per capita and violent crime per capita. Gun violence is instead predicted by median income of an area. It's why Scandinavian countries have such high gun ownership rates, but less violent crime than Germany or the UK, because the income inequality in the latter nations is far greater.

The US has the worst violent crime rate in the west because it has the most income inequality in the west, not because of gun ownership rates.

[totallackey]

Gun ownership rates don't predict the gun violence rates in any country. There's no correlation between guns per capita and violent crime per capita. Gun violence is instead predicted by median income of an area. It's why Scandinavian countries have such high gun ownership rates, but less violent crime than Germany or the UK, because the income inequality in the latter nations is far greater.

The US has the worst violent crime rate in the west because it has the most income inequality in the west, not because of gun ownership rates.

The US does not have the worst violent crime rate in the West.

The US barely cracks the top 100.

[Rushy]

The US does not have the worst violent crime rate in the West.

The US barely cracks the top 100.

Which Western nations have a higher violent crime rate than the US? Are you going to start listing off Soviet bloc nations or something?

[Rama Set]

The US does not have the worst violent crime rate in the West.

The US barely cracks the top 100.

Which Western nations have a higher violent crime rate than the US? Are you going to start listing off Soviet bloc nations or something?

he is going to be pedantic and say something like Venezuela.