Billie Joe posts photo in support of stronger gun laws #NotOneMore

[Chin for a Day]

When it comes to guns, though, the people of the U.S. as a whole want them and don't want stricter gun control laws. If there were to be a general strike across the country in order to pressure the government to do something about guns, it would most likely be a pro-gun, not an anti-gun strike. Guns and gun-ownership are held near and dear to the hearts of the majority of voters in the United States. It's not a vocal majority, but it's a majority that has historically turned out and booted politicians out of office for holding anti-gun stances.

I disagree that as a whole we don't want stricter gun laws. I think most citizens realize there need to be changes in the gun laws. Again, one that comes to mind quickly is the gun show loophole. I think most Americans realize there needs to be back ground checks.

However, I do agree that the proi-gun advocates, such as the NRA, are very good at manipulating the political system. They have become adept at changing a situation to suite their needs.

Just to show anyone outside the US why we say it is difficult to change the gun laws. I just received this groupon for 47% off a gun safety course. And I live 10 miles from Sandy Hook. http://www.groupon.com/deals/ct-gun-permit-8?p=5&utm_source=pc&utm_medium=email&sid=82268eca-c0c6-4196-8281-7b347a078f04&division=fairfield-county&user=cb94902d2c4f2c3587a64623bfc94198e42e78117afac661255e5d7d9bcd1522&date=20141120&s=body&c=link&d=deal-page&utm_campaign=82268eca-c0c6-4196-8281-7b347a078f04

[Z J]

Don't feel like getting involved, but since Fuzz asked for it:

The most convincing pro-gun argument is that people will always kill and giving them access to means of doing so will not affect that. You can kill someone with any weapon. Chainsaw. Hatchet. Pencil. Knife. Should we ban all of these things? No. The problem isn't guns. The problem is negligence to mental health in our country. In most cases of mass shootings, there was a psychological problem in the mind of the murderer than was simply disregarded.

A good phrase to use is "Laws do not apply to criminals". Criminals break laws for the satisfaction of doing so. Layering on more laws will do nothing. Ban guns like you ban drugs and you are going to lead to more violence and just as easy access, except this time not documented or controlled.

Just look at the UK for an example. They passed the Second Firearms Act in 1997 as a reaction to a school shooting. Since that year, murder per 100,000 has risen and peaked at 2.1 in 2002. The rate started at 1.12/100k and hasn't even come close to that low since that year.

Overall, people will keep killing, and giving them more attention and negative reinforcement will only give them more of a kick. My town has a lot of gun owners. Most of them keep them locked up or only use them for hunting. Where are the gun crimes happening? In the poor part of my town, usually with stolen weapons. Go ahead and make guns illegal. Nothing will change.

I have a lot of disagreements with this, but the last sentence is just statistically incorrect

Oooo I have another thought on why gun control is met with such resistance in the U.S. Aside from the usual arguments (home defense, 2nd Amendment, etc.) stricter gun laws, unlike most other legislation, have an immediate, negative effect on law-abiding citizens who are gun owners. It's a unifying issue for gun holders, regardless of their political ideology. When New York passes a law saying you can't have a particular stock on your gun, or you can only load x number of rounds into your chamber at any given time, regardless of the how many rounds you can fit in there, that has an immediate, stressful effect on legal gun owners who want to continue to be legal gun owners. Being told that an item you purchased legally last year is illegal this year and you have to go to the work of registering it or selling it due to the arbitrary legislative actions of people who probably don't own guns and don't understand what they're doing rubs all gun owners the wrong way. The result usually is that gun owners band together in the next election and vote for people who will reverse the law.

This feels like an appeal to authority. People who don't own a gun are more than capable of analyzing the impact of them and drawing legislation based on that analysis.

You may be playing devil's advocate or something though so perhaps I misinterpreted, but either way that reasoning seems flawed to me.

I disagree that as a whole we don't want stricter gun laws. I think most citizens realize there need to be changes in the gun laws. Again, one that comes to mind quickly is the gun show loophole. I think most Americans realize there needs to be back ground checks.

However, I do agree that the anti-gun advocates, such as the NRA, are very good at manipulating the political system. They have become adept at changing a situation to suite their needs.

The two main reasons gun laws meet heavy resistance:

1) America has a gun culture that far exceeds any other industrialized nations. This is not a reason to not tighten the laws, but it is a hindrance.

2) The NRA lobbies and, like you said, manipulates the system to either a) get their person in office or b) influence (or coerce) the person in office. The problem is moderate republicans can't get re-elected if they don't have the NRA on their side, because if they piss off the NRA, millions of dollars will be thrown toward a more radical opponent.

[Guest]

I have a lot of disagreements with this, but the last sentence is just statistically incorrect

This feels like an appeal to authority. People who don't own a gun are more than capable of analyzing the impact of them and drawing legislation based on that analysis.

You may be playing devil's advocate or something though so perhaps I misinterpreted, but either way that reasoning seems flawed to me.

I'm just explaining what I've observed about the resistance to gun laws, living in the community that I do. Even though I live in very blue New York State (just like you!! ), aside from NYC, Albany, and one or two other counties, most of New York is comprised of back-woods rednecks who love their guns. Just look at a break-down of how the various counties reacted to the NY SAFE Law:

Sorry for the political propoganda splashed all over it, but it was the quickest map I could find in a pinch bear in mind that this reaction happened right after the 2012 election that saw New York State go pretty blue, even in CNY/Western NY, thanks to voters turning out to vote Obama back into office.

Anyway, yeah, the prevailing attitude that I've seen among gun owners is that these anti-gun politicians are frankly talking out of their asses when it comes to gun control, and they don't appreciate being told what to do from some smug bueracrat in Washington/Albany/whatever. This is a very typical attitude of your average gun owner, and with the massive grassroots efforts that the NRA (which your typical gun-owner sees as a god-send) puts forth come election time, it's small wonder that little progress is made on these issues.

[WhiteTim]

You're talking about America, here. We don't think rationally.

The idea that "laws won't stop the 'bad guys'" hasn't legalized marijuana yet, has it?

Columbine and Sandy Hook, along with Virginia Tech, are three of the most deadly school shootings in U.S. history. The reason they're so prominently discussed is because they're just that prominent. It's different than one kid shooting another kid. These are premeditated acts by ill people with the sole objective of causing widespread terror. And the fact is, overwhelmingly, white boys/men commit these crimes.

The "shooting a robber threatening your family" thing is such anecdotal shit. How often does this actually happen? How many people would actually be able to kill another human if given the chance? It's more of a "peace of mind" thing, but practical? Not really.

Since when has the U.S. "war on drugs" made sense, in terms of what's deadly and what's not? Comparatively speaking, weed is harmless, yet it's illegal, so...

Actually the Compton school shooting had more killed than Columbine but like I said black kid killing black kids nobody gives a fuck about that

The school shooting I mentioned weren't kust black kid killing a black kid

[DookieLukie]

You're absolutely ridiculous. Advocating equality and acknowledging disparity means I'm a warrior? Alrighty then.

You've already debunked your statement about the effectiveness of programs like DARE in your own post. You're a white male, likely from a privileged or at least stable household, so DARE didn't teach you about drugs, your parents did. All children don't have that luxury, so DARE either, as you said, encourages them to learn more about drugs, or brainwashes them into misunderstanding which drugs are serious problems and which ones aren't as severe. It's just overall not a good educational tool.

And to think the world can't be changed is a sad existence. Tell that to all the "social justice warriors" of the world who've actually made a difference. Just because you're apathetic and indifferent and are satisfied with things "as is" (of course you are, you're a white male in America) doesn't mean you speak for all of us.

Playing by the rules hasn't worked for me yet, but thanks for the advice. "Well behaved women rarely make history, etc."

I never stood up for dare or claimed it to be adequate, so I'm not debunking anything about it.

When it was voting day a few weeks ago, a bunch of people took to Facebook saying "Don't vote. The system is corrupt." Instead people ranted online. Yes, the world has layers and layers built in support of never changing. We CAN change things, but not with the above mentioned attitude of "it's all fucked up don't bother." A feminist girl I know said she refuses to vote because no men were running. Well shit, do research into these men, figure out which one is more supportive of women's rights, and vote for him. Social change takes work and time, and most Tumblrinas and such expect instant gratification and change. There's lots of good energy out there being wasted by people not taking proper action.

And enough with the "white male = perfect life" crap. You literally have zero knowledge about anything in my life. The thought that white men are devoid of common human problems is ridiculous. Never in my life has being white gotten me anything useful. I've never been handed anything. I face the same problems in life as you. I have the same fears as you. Being white presents me with no obvious benefit. I don't see any white people college scholarships or jobs that have white people requirements. Sure, racists may respect me more, but I hardly care about that. There are things I'd love to change about the world, but I'm a realist and understand that these things are more of Utopian fantasy than reality. Maybe hundreds of years from now race or sex won't be an issue, but that's not likely going to change anytime soon, especially to the extremes SJWs want to take it.

My family has always told me one thing: Life is shitty at times. Life is going to whip you around and make things miserable. Your worth as a human being is your ability to weather than storm and come out on top. And sometimes you have to put down your pitchfork and just live within the constraints you are given. My grandmother wasn't a feminist in what she said, but what she did in her life and how she inspired others was stronger than anything any feminist claims on the internet. You know who were the most influential people in the civil rights movement? Fucking White House butlers. They worked hard, treated everyone with respect, and didn't bitch and moan. They made themselves into activists by being living proof of why racism was so inaccurate and ridiculous, and political figures in the White House saw that and changed. Sure, life isn't perfect for everyone, but sitting around complaining gets NOTHING DONE. Actions speak louder than words, so go live your life like you want to live it and change people's minds that way.

I have a lot of disagreements with this, but the last sentence is just statistically incorrect

How can an opinionated, hypothetical sentence by statistically incorrect?

[Guest]

but sitting around complaining gets NOTHING DONE.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you just posted 3 massive paragraphs complaining about stuff?

[DookieLukie]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you just posted 3 massive paragraphs complaining about stuff?

Yeah but the difference is that I'm not trying to change things.

This is my last post so send any replies to me in PM.

[Guest]

Yeah but the difference is that I'm not trying to change things.

This is my last post so send any replies to me in PM.

Nah, can't be arsed.

[Z J]

How can an opinionated, hypothetical sentence by statistically incorrect?

Because there is evidence to suggest that banning/regulating guns does lower gun violence? That is in direct conflict with your statement, therefore I'd say it's incorrect.

The number of gun-deaths per capita in the U.S. compared to countries with strict gun control tells the whole story. You can argue that correlation does not equal causation, but at some point it becomes clear that in order to lower gun deaths a country needs to crack down on guns.

Yeah but the difference is that I'm not trying to change things.

This is my last post so send any replies to me in PM.

Instead of debating it with everyone else? You know people aren't going to do that so it feels as if you're running from the conversation

[Cruise]

Yes black market wouldn't help some and its cut back on the school shootings but you are aware that school shootings are not a every day situation it's 2% what about the murderers? What about the strong arm robberies? They know where to go to get stolen guns

And your comment about needing guns to protect is true... I'm sorry if you or others on here are okay with being victims but a lot of folks aren't okay with being victims and seeing things being taken that they worked hard to achieve or watching a robber tie up their spouse maybe you are ok with that I wouldn't you sit and watch someone attack your family and not try to save them (escp if it's a child) is weak sorry that a lot of people seem to want to give criminal more rights than the victim but I believe in protecting family and yours by any means neasacary

The majority of smaller hold ups are done by people who are just trying to survive. Crime rates are direct influence of poverty. If people are having trouble getting by they are likely to go out and perform a robbery. These people do not have the money to buy things on the black market. There will always be stolen guns, but if the country has a very small amount of guns that become extremely hard to find, unlike where it is really easy to find a gun to steal now if hardly anyone else had them, they would have to either have information or be extremely lucky to find a place with one.

This protection thing is just crazy. Why do you need a gun there are plenty of other ways to do it? If you have a gun their is has high chance the criminal has a gun. So you are on a level playing field. If neither of you have guns you are also on a level playing field except this time the criminal needs to be right next to the person to injure them. My Dad used to be in the Police force out here and through him I know many other serving police officers and all of them have been in these kinds of situations. 100% of the time they would rather be against someone with a knife then a gun, purely down to the distance required to cause injury. Note: Guns are not the only way and only make the situation worse.

Also does everyone forget America was founded by murder and stealing? So violence has always been our culture...

Umm, Australia is country settled by criminals (even some of our icons are criminals, aka Ned Kelly) and has no issues, so that is not even the slightest bit of a valid excuse.

[WhiteTim]

The majority of smaller hold ups are done by people who are just trying to survive. Crime rates are direct influence of poverty. If people are having trouble getting by they are likely to go out and perform a robbery. These people do not have the money to buy things on the black market. There will always be stolen guns, but if the country has a very small amount of guns that become extremely hard to find, unlike where it is really easy to find a gun to steal now if hardly anyone else had them, they would have to either have information or be extremely lucky to find a place with one.

This protection thing is just crazy. Why do you need a gun there are plenty of other ways to do it? If you have a gun their is has high chance the criminal has a gun. So you are on a level playing field. If neither of you have guns you are also on a level playing field except this time the criminal needs to be right next to the person to injure them. My Dad used to be in the Police force out here and through him I know many other serving police officers and all of them have been in these kinds of situations. 100% of the time they would rather be against someone with a knife then a gun, purely down to the distance required to cause injury. Note: Guns are not the only way and only make the situation worse.

Umm, Australia is country settled by criminals (even some of our icons are criminals, aka Ned Kelly) and has no issues, so that is not even the slightest bit of a valid excuse.

A robber breaks into your house he has a gun you don't he threatens your family what do you do?

And don't say something weak like "just do what he says won't get hurt" doesn't always work

Like I said recently a family got robbed didn't put up a fight complied with the robbers they killed the father and the 2 year old the wife thankfully or maybe not thankfully survived (I said maybe not because you lost lost your child and husband and you survived so maybe issues so) so no that "don't fight you'll survive" shit don't work

As for me Houston and LA are bad areas and we have a lot of murders here I have a lot of very very expensive items plus I have a kid to protect if he was in any danger from a person I will kill that person without a second hesitation and will not apologize for that people can stop coming at me with the "so such and such is more important than a robbers life" yes yes it is my family is worth way than any criminal life...

[Rosie May]

A robber breaks into your house he has a gun you don't he threatens your family what do you do?

And don't say something weak like "just do what he says won't get hurt" doesn't always work.

We must have guns because the criminals have them. That's what this argument boils down to. If guns were not so readily available, then the criminal probably wouldn't have one either, so no one would need them to use in self defense.

America needs a serious culture revamp before any kind of real change can happen with this. Coming from a place that has no gun culture, it just sounds ludicrous and frightening to me that people think owning dangerous firearms is necessary.

[WhiteTim]

We must have guns because the criminals have them. That's what this argument boils down to. If guns were not so readily available, then the criminal probably wouldn't have one either, so no one would need them to use in self defense.

America needs a serious culture revamp before any kind of real change can happen with this. Coming from a place that has no gun culture, it just sounds ludicrous and frightening to me that people think owning dangerous firearms is necessary.

There are over a million guns that have been stolen and never recovered

If somehow America banned guns that still leaves all those missing guns winding up in criminal hands

All the "but if prison time was more servere criminals would stop using" is stupid and idiotic extacy can land people in prison for 50 years X pills are STILL out there people are still selling them prison time means not a goddamn thing to some folks

[Rosie May]

There are over a million guns that have been stolen and never recovered

That's why my point it that the whole culture needs to change. If the over time, America adopted a different attitude towards guns they could deal with these problems such as missing guns etc. Over a long period of time, banning guns would become a viable option. Obviously now it's not.

Also if guns weren't such a huge part of the culture and so easy to access, there wouldn't be so many stolen and never recovered in the first place. I dunno why (a lot of) Americans make out like it's something intrinsic to society, and that guns are necessary, when it's pretty clear the rest of the developed world are doing just fine without them.

Anyway, don't really want to get into this much further. Ceadog and co are doing a much better job of debating this than I can.

[WhiteTim]

That's why my point it that the whole culture needs to change. If the over time, America adopted a different attitude towards guns they could deal with these problems such as missing guns etc. Over a long period of time, banning guns would become a viable option. Obviously now it's not.

Also if guns weren't such a huge part of the culture and so easy to access, there wouldn't be so many stolen and never recovered in the first place. I dunno why (a lot of) Americans make out like it's something intrinsic to society, and that guns are necessary, when it's pretty clear the rest of the developed world are doing just fine without them.

Anyway, don't really want to get into this much further. Ceadog and co are doing a much better job of debating this than I can.

So if we ban guns and somehow America just HAPPENS (haha) to recover the stolen guns cause the criminals will all the sudden want to turn them in

How do you suggest we eat? What about the hunters?

[Guest]

There are over a million guns that have been stolen and never recovered

If somehow America banned guns that still leaves all those missing guns winding up in criminal hands

All the "but if prison time was more servere criminals would stop using" is stupid and idiotic extacy can land people in prison for 50 years X pills are STILL out there people are still selling them prison time means not a goddamn thing to some folks

The drugs vs. guns debate is completely fallacious. There's huge money in drug dealing, not so much in selling the odd handgun.

I've already explained this before anyway so I'm not gonna bother doing so again.

How do you suggest we eat? What about the hunters?

They can go to Walmart like everyone else. Or buy a crossbow.

[WhiteTim]

The drugs vs. guns debate is completely fallacious. There's huge money in drug dealing, not so much in selling the odd handgun.

I've already explained this before anyway so I'm not gonna bother doing so again.

They can go to Walmart like everyone else. Or buy a crossbow.

Don't ask me how I know this but guns sells for more money than any drugs...

And what I'm saying is some criminals don't give a damn bout the punishment

[Rosie May]

So if we ban guns and somehow America just HAPPENS (haha) to recover the stolen guns cause the criminals will all the sudden want to turn them in

How do you suggest we eat? What about the hunters?

They should work on recovering guns before banning them. That's why the whole process should be gradual so that it would be safe to ban guns for general use years after the ball starts rolling towards this end.

When I say ban guns, I don't mean literally ban every gun in every context ever. I mean don't have it so that anyone can just a get a gun, and don't have a culture that normalises guns and gun use in all sorts of situations. (Or the use of guns by children which is all kinds of wrong and stupid.)

Anyone who needs a gun for hunting would need a hunting license, you know, like most other places in the world.

[WhiteTim]

They should work on recovering guns before banning them. That's why the whole process should be gradual so that it would be safe to ban guns for general use years after the ball starts rolling towards this end.

When I say ban guns, I don't mean literally ban every gun in every context ever. I mean don't have it so that anyone can just a get a gun, and don't have a culture that normalises guns and gun use in all sorts of situations. (Or the use of guns by children which is all kinds of wrong and stupid.)

Anyone who needs a gun for hunting would need a hunting license, you know, like most other places in the world.

Children should be taught about the guns escp if you are a gun owner and have both in the house

They should also be locked up and out of reach of children as well

Some take their kids hunting I know several who do I however don't really care for hunting escp if it's just for sporting purposes

But I agree with that it needs to be tougher for people to get and I think everyone should be required to take classes and be licensed as of now you only need a license if you carry if you keep it in your house you dont have to get one

[Guest]

The idea of holding a gun is utterly terrifying to me, never mind letting any kid, let alone one of mine, hold one or even fire one.

[Rosie May]

Children should be taught about the guns escp if you are a gun owner and have both in the house

They should also be locked up and out of reach of children as well

Some take their kids hunting I know several who do I however don't really care for hunting escp if it's just for sporting purposes

But I agree with that it needs to be tougher for people to get and I think everyone should be required to take classes and be licensed as of now you only need a license if you carry if you keep it in your house you dont have to get one

I don't think kids should ever have access to guns. They're kids, they don't need to know how to use powerful weapons. If they grow up and take an interest then that's a different story, but adults teaching their kids to shoot is just down right irresponsible.

I saw a documentary about kid shooters, and a seven year old (at least I think he was seven) accidentally shot himself and died. This is the consequence of the culture. Sure you can talk about health and safety all day long, but you're still trusting a child with something that is designed to kill. There's nothing positive about that to me.

[WhiteTim]

The idea of holding a gun is utterly terrifying to me, never mind letting any kid, let alone one of mine, hold one or even fire one.

Well I wouldn't let mine hold or shoot until he's at least 18 but he knows to leave them alone and not to touch them

I don't think kids should ever have access to guns. They're kids, they don't need to know how to use powerful weapons. If they grow up and take an interest then that's a different story, but adults teaching their kids to shoot is just down right irresponsible.

I saw a documentary about kid shooters, and a seven year old (at least I think he was seven) accidentally shot himself and died. This is the consequence of the culture. Sure you can talk about health and safety all day long, but you're still trusting a child with something that is designed to kill. There's nothing positive about that to me.

Every kid is different

I do believe in teaching gun safety to kids and everyone

If you do not teach kids about a gun and he comes across one let's say he's over at a friends house and their parents are idiots and leaves a gun laying around if we leave kids to know nothing about them guess what the odds of them harming themselves or someone else is higher than a kid who knows that's a gun and to leave it alone

[Guest]

Or we dig a really big hole and throw all the guns in it and set it on fire and then nuke it.

[WhiteTim]

Or we dig a really big hole and throw all the guns in it and set it on fire and then nuke it.

genius!

And what do you suggest to do about the bullets there are other ways to use a bullet than by a gun...

[Guest]

And blow the entire US off the map genius!

As tempting as that sounds, I must admit that I was joking.

Also even the most powerful nuke would barely level a city nevermind a continent but anyway.