America's unique problem with gun violence

CONGRATU FUCKING LATIONS FOR REALIZING THIS

WHY DON'T YOU ALSO REALIZE THAT THE UNITED FUCKING STATES ALSO HAS BIGGER PROBLEMS THAN THE WRONG PEOPLE OWNING GUNS?

No need to scream your bloody head off.

Mexico's problems are drastically, objectively worse than the worst problems in America. Literal war in the streets against the cartels with governmental corruption far beyond that which exists in most other countries. Gun control not working because Mexico is FUBAR is not evidence of gun control failing.

Just because America has some problems doesn't mean we should simply ignore others.

There is no western country comparable to the US.

United Kingdom, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Wales, Germany, Spain, France, Greece, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Demark, Norway, Switzerland, Belgium, and Italy, just to name a few.

Seriously, Canada, ya dingus.

Not really. Violent areas are still violent. Wealthy, homogenous regions still don't see much violence.

US has a drastically higher rate of mass shootings and gun violence in general compared with comparable countries that have stronger gun control. It's been utterly effective at doing exactly what it was intended to do.

Yeah, you can't exactly ban mental illness, poverty, or shitty publicly-funded education systems. Well, I mean, you could do away with the latter, but nobody is willing to.

It's an easy exit to blame vague problems that every place has in some capacity. Folks need to actually offer tangible solutions than simply stating 'something is wrong, fix it,' which is literally as far as that line of reasoning goes, because we're never any further to a solution each time this happens. And I really can't think of any mass shooter who was exceptionally poor or uneducated, so I have serious doubts about whether such measures would even be effective.

I hate the "Swiss example" because it doesn't represent what firearm ownership should be. Rather than empowering the individual and protecting their place in society, Swiss armament is only a measure taken to ensure the survival of the nation-state in the event of war.

In case you weren't aware, in its early days, the US was under constant risk of being taken over by a larger country. Gun ownership was literally about defending the country, and the Second Amendment states as much: "...a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." It was for the same reasons as the Swiss have today.

However, the structure of the sentence makes what was probably intended as a requirement to simply be a suggestion, but I digress.

Literally why not, other than your cultural bias? Cigarettes and alcohol have done quantifiably more damage than guns have in the United States. Faggots keep telling me they're not comparable but refuse to explain why beyond "hurr guns were made to kill!!".

I didn't realize alcohol could shoot up an elementary school.

My point is none of these shootings would even happen if gun stores were smart enough to discriminate and pay attention to who they're selling to.

You don't seem to understand human nature. If people aren't explicitly forbidden from doing something, they'll take it to the most extreme point possible. As an example, the government's overly broad interpretations of the Patriot Act should be strong enough evidence of that.

You know what's funny? You'll ban guns, and still get those nasty shootings. And what isn't a shooting turns into stabbings and possibly sword violence. What you gonna do then? Ban blades?

Spoiler

Because people can't just create their own blades/shivs and go on a killing spree.

Worst part is that if it happens, how're people gonna defend themselves? Hide and hope the killer doesn't find them? That's one horrifying game of hide n seek.

[citations needed]

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

You're denying a person of their RIGHTS by preventing them from doing something that has no direct or inherent impact on you or anybody else. It's essentially the same thing as a smoking or liquor ban.

Smoking should be banned. Liquor, no. But smoking is objectively terrible and shouldn't be permitted. Guns are similar. They produce a lot of bad, and zero good. They're useless and dangerous, and nobody deserves to own one. I couldn't give any less of a damn if you believe I'm infringing on your "Rights," by taking something out of your possession that results in people dying.

"But blah blah blah results in people dying, too!"

Fantastic, but those things are not literally designed to kill people.

I don't need a fast car or a bottle of fireball, either, and those things together kill more here than guns do.

Fuck, I don't need a swimming pool, and those alone kill more than long guns every year.

Those things are also not meant exclusively for the purpose of killing. And you can't bring a swimming pool to a school and kill people with it lol

Smoking should be banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Socio-economic_effects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_Prohibition

Spoiler

please continue mr shekelberg

Smoking should be banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Socio-economic_effects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_Prohibition

Spoiler

please continue mr shekelberg

"Let me pretend I know how you plan on having these things done so I can look smart with wikipeda."

Smoking should be banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Socio-economic_effects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_Prohibition

Spoiler

please continue mr shekelberg

"Let me pretend I know how you plan on having these things done so I can look smart with wikipeda."

Please elaborate on how you would implement a successful smoking ban when virtually all other kinds of state sponsored prohibition has demonstrably failed, both legislatively and economically.

I'm sure your magical insight will enlighten us all.

Smoking should be banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Socio-economic_effects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_Prohibition

Spoiler

please continue mr shekelberg

"Let me pretend I know how you plan on having these things done so I can look smart with wikipeda."

Please elaborate on how you would implement a successful smoking ban when virtually all other kinds of state sponsored prohibition has demonstrably failed, both legislatively and economically.

I'm sure your magical insight will enlighten us all.

Did I say I had a plan? No, I didn't. I said it should be banned.

Not in a swift, quick, "It's gone," but smoking should be gradually phased out.

Smoking should be banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Socio-economic_effects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_Prohibition

Spoiler

please continue mr shekelberg

"Let me pretend I know how you plan on having these things done so I can look smart with wikipeda."

Please elaborate on how you would implement a successful smoking ban when virtually all other kinds of state sponsored prohibition has demonstrably failed, both legislatively and economically.

I'm sure your magical insight will enlighten us all.

Did I say I had a plan? No, I didn't. I said it should be banned.

Not in a swift, quick, "It's gone," but smoking should be gradually phased out.

It's already being phased out. More and more people are voluntarily opting out of smoking, largely due to emphasis on education and health. Regulation also helped, but there's obviously a stark difference between regulation and prohibition.

We don't need anymore state interference, thanks.

Smoking should be banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Socio-economic_effects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_Prohibition

Spoiler

please continue mr shekelberg

"Let me pretend I know how you plan on having these things done so I can look smart with wikipeda."

Please elaborate on how you would implement a successful smoking ban when virtually all other kinds of state sponsored prohibition has demonstrably failed, both legislatively and economically.

I'm sure your magical insight will enlighten us all.

Did I say I had a plan? No, I didn't. I said it should be banned.

Not in a swift, quick, "It's gone," but smoking should be gradually phased out.

It's already being phased out. More and more people are voluntarily opting out of smoking, largely due to emphasis on education and health. Regulation also helped, but there's obviously a stark difference between regulation and prohibition.

We don't need anymore state interference, thanks.

That's the point. Ban it when nobody gives a shit anymore.

Like public beheadings.

Meanwhile, regarding gun control, it should be as regulated as owning a car.

Just saying.

Smoking should be banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Socio-economic_effects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_Prohibition

Spoiler

please continue mr shekelberg

"Let me pretend I know how you plan on having these things done so I can look smart with wikipeda."

Please elaborate on how you would implement a successful smoking ban when virtually all other kinds of state sponsored prohibition has demonstrably failed, both legislatively and economically.

I'm sure your magical insight will enlighten us all.

Did I say I had a plan? No, I didn't. I said it should be banned.

Not in a swift, quick, "It's gone," but smoking should be gradually phased out.

It's already being phased out. More and more people are voluntarily opting out of smoking, largely due to emphasis on education and health. Regulation also helped, but there's obviously a stark difference between regulation and prohibition.

We don't need anymore state interference, thanks.

That's the point. Ban it when nobody gives a shit anymore.

Like public beheadings.

There will always be someone who gives a shit about doing whatever they want.

Point is, state intervention isn't going to solve that. It doesn't matter if 99% of the population hate smoking. If someone wants to participate in such an activity that doesn't infringe on anyone else, it's nobody's business (and certainly not the state's) to dictate what they want to do with their own body.

Smoking should be banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Socio-economic_effects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_Prohibition

Spoiler

please continue mr shekelberg

"Let me pretend I know how you plan on having these things done so I can look smart with wikipeda."

Please elaborate on how you would implement a successful smoking ban when virtually all other kinds of state sponsored prohibition has demonstrably failed, both legislatively and economically.

I'm sure your magical insight will enlighten us all.

Did I say I had a plan? No, I didn't. I said it should be banned.

Not in a swift, quick, "It's gone," but smoking should be gradually phased out.

It's already being phased out. More and more people are voluntarily opting out of smoking, largely due to emphasis on education and health. Regulation also helped, but there's obviously a stark difference between regulation and prohibition.

We don't need anymore state interference, thanks.

That's the point. Ban it when nobody gives a shit anymore.

Like public beheadings.

There will always be someone who gives a shit about doing whatever they want.

Point is, state intervention isn't going to solve that. It doesn't matter if 99% of the population hate smoking. If someone wants to participate in such an activity that doesn't infringe on anyone else, it's nobody's business (and certainly not the state's) to dictate what they want to do with their own body.

Now, I'm all for stronger gun control laws, but I feel that banning drugs is an ineffective way to spend time legislating, and isn't going to make that much of a difference either way. Yes, people will probably just do it anyway, as history has shown.

But I don't think 'people will violate the law anyway' is necessarily a valid objection. Murder still happens, too, but we don't legalize that.

Meanwhile, regarding gun control, it should be as regulated as owning a car.

Just saying.

Yearly registration of automobiles should be abolished, tbh.
Emissions inspections too.

Smoking should be banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Socio-economic_effects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_Prohibition

Spoiler

please continue mr shekelberg

"Let me pretend I know how you plan on having these things done so I can look smart with wikipeda."

Please elaborate on how you would implement a successful smoking ban when virtually all other kinds of state sponsored prohibition has demonstrably failed, both legislatively and economically.

I'm sure your magical insight will enlighten us all.

Did I say I had a plan? No, I didn't. I said it should be banned.

Not in a swift, quick, "It's gone," but smoking should be gradually phased out.

It's already being phased out. More and more people are voluntarily opting out of smoking, largely due to emphasis on education and health. Regulation also helped, but there's obviously a stark difference between regulation and prohibition.

We don't need anymore state interference, thanks.

That's the point. Ban it when nobody gives a shit anymore.

Like public beheadings.

There will always be someone who gives a shit about doing whatever they want.

Point is, state intervention isn't going to solve that. It doesn't matter if 99% of the population hate smoking. If someone wants to participate in such an activity that doesn't infringe on anyone else, it's nobody's business (and certainly not the state's) to dictate what they want to do with their own body.

Now, I'm all for stronger gun control laws, but I feel that banning drugs is an ineffective way to spend time legislating, and isn't going to make that much of a difference either way. Yes, people will probably just do it anyway, as history has shown.

But I don't think 'people will violate the law anyway' is necessarily a valid objection. Murder still happens, too, but we don't legalize that.

I've never been a proponent of the "criminals will always be criminals" meme. As Flee pointed out, it's a null term. No more than a facile whine, and it needs to stop being parroted in debates like these.

But likewise, I don't see what's so contemptible about participating in an activity that doesn't infringe or affect anyone else's life. If someone wants to shoot up heroine or fire a couple rounds in the woods that's nobody business but theirs, and theirs alone.

Why?

It's like some people really don't care if what they have is up to date and safe when you're putting other people in danger when driving. American's take way too much pride in personal freedoms, which is ironic because we have less now than we ever did before thanks to 9-11.

Why?

It's like some people really don't care if what they have is up to date and safe when you're putting other people in danger when driving. American's take way too much pride in personal freedoms, which is ironic because we have less now than we ever did before thanks to 9-11.

I didn't say anything about safety/maintenance inspections.
Fun fact: in Delaware, vehicle inspections are good for two years instead of the nearly universal one.

Emissions is a money grab by the state and so is registration.

Smoking should be banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Socio-economic_effects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_Prohibition

Spoiler

please continue mr shekelberg

"Let me pretend I know how you plan on having these things done so I can look smart with wikipeda."

Please elaborate on how you would implement a successful smoking ban when virtually all other kinds of state sponsored prohibition has demonstrably failed, both legislatively and economically.

I'm sure your magical insight will enlighten us all.

Did I say I had a plan? No, I didn't. I said it should be banned.

Not in a swift, quick, "It's gone," but smoking should be gradually phased out.

It's already being phased out. More and more people are voluntarily opting out of smoking, largely due to emphasis on education and health. Regulation also helped, but there's obviously a stark difference between regulation and prohibition.

We don't need anymore state interference, thanks.

That's the point. Ban it when nobody gives a shit anymore.

Like public beheadings.

There will always be someone who gives a shit about doing whatever they want.

Point is, state intervention isn't going to solve that. It doesn't matter if 99% of the population hate smoking. If someone wants to participate in such an activity that doesn't infringe on anyone else, it's nobody's business (and certainly not the state's) to dictate what they want to do with their own body.

Now, I'm all for stronger gun control laws, but I feel that banning drugs is an ineffective way to spend time legislating, and isn't going to make that much of a difference either way. Yes, people will probably just do it anyway, as history has shown.

But I don't think 'people will violate the law anyway' is necessarily a valid objection. Murder still happens, too, but we don't legalize that.

I've never been a proponent of the "criminals will always be criminals" meme. As Flee pointed out, it's a null term. No more than a facile whine, and it needs to stop being parroted in debates like these.

But likewise, I don't see what's so contemptible about participating in an activity that doesn't infringe or affect anyone else's life. If someone wants to shoot up heroine or fire a couple rounds in the woods that's nobody business but theirs, and theirs alone.

I agree. >.>

Spoiler

The only real reason I could think of for banning drugs is that it'll at least stop a lot of people from ruining their lives with them, but in practice, drug laws have always turned out more draconian than they should be.

But more importantly, it's a victimless crime, so to speak, and government doesn't need to play nanny.

Emissions inspections too.

Why

Emissions inspections too.

Why

Largely pointless for newer vehicles (volkswagon just proved my largest complaint about the OBDII scans) and incredibly useless for older vehicles that the owner doesn't want antique tags for.

"Oh, what's that? You want to install a more efficient fuel system or a new motor into your late 70's/early 80's domestic car? Just be sure to re-install every bit of inefficient EPA mandated smog gear from 30 years ago or you're not legal with the state codes." Fuck that shit.

Emissions stickers are solely extra money for the state.

Meanwhile, regarding gun control, it should be as regulated as owning a car.

Just saying.

Yearly registration of automobiles should be abolished, tbh.
Emissions inspections too.

That's great.

You still have to have a license in order to use a car, which requires (In some states, not others) upwards of 50+ hours practice, a written exam, and a practical exam.

On top of that, yearly inspections, licensing renewals, etc etc.

If you want a gun, fine. You should have to prove that you are competent enough for one, understand how one works, (Including storing and cleaning, hopefully to cut back on accidents we hear about time and time again), and be subject to renewals on a certain time basis.

Meanwhile, regarding gun control, it should be as regulated as owning a car.

Just saying.

Yearly registration of automobiles should be abolished, tbh.
Emissions inspections too.

That's great.

You still have to have a license in order to use a car, which requires (In some states, not others) upwards of 50+ hours practice, a written exam, and a practical exam.

On top of that, yearly inspections, licensing renewals, etc etc.

If you want a gun, fine. You should have to prove that you are competent enough for one, understand how one works, (Including storing and cleaning, hopefully to cut back on accidents we hear about time and time again), and be subject to renewals on a certain time basis.

Mandatory firearms training is something I'd be wholly for. Between my military background and having taken mandatory hunter safety courses as a teen, I can definitely call that a good thing.

But, here's the opposite side. If a system like this is implemented, it needs to come with guaranteed 50 state reciprocity for your state firearms licenses just like there is for your driver's license.  None of this bullshit.

Meanwhile, regarding gun control, it should be as regulated as owning a car.

Just saying.

Yearly registration of automobiles should be abolished, tbh.
Emissions inspections too.

That's great.

You still have to have a license in order to use a car, which requires (In some states, not others) upwards of 50+ hours practice, a written exam, and a practical exam.

On top of that, yearly inspections, licensing renewals, etc etc.

If you want a gun, fine. You should have to prove that you are competent enough for one, understand how one works, (Including storing and cleaning, hopefully to cut back on accidents we hear about time and time again), and be subject to renewals on a certain time basis.

Mandatory firearms training is something I'd be wholly for. Between my military background and having taken mandatory hunter safety courses as a teen, I can definitely call that a good thing.

But, here's the opposite side. If a system like this is implemented, it needs to come with guaranteed 50 state reciprocity for your state firearms licenses just like there is for your driver's license.  None of this bullshit.

Fair enough, I'd be fine with that.