[POLL] U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[Foxi4]

I doubt all pf them are legally owned however. Plus what is considered "legally owned" varies by state.

That's fair, but you wouldn't admit to owning an "illegal gun", whatever that might mean, in a survey - it's illegal. There's no reason for you to admit to owning something that can get you thrown into the slammer.

 

[Lacius]

Yes, that is what they say, but they rarely elaborate on what the "responsible regulation" is. When pressed, at least in my experience, they just tend to be afraid of guns even existing. They're against open carry because the sight of a gun scares them, they're afraid of closed carry because they can't see who's armed and who isn't and thus they feel threatened. Nothing seems to be "reasonable", at least nothing short of just removing guns from the equation altogether.

If you can't carry openly or secretly, how can you carry? What kind of additional "checks" should be implemented? Is this a case of bad PR caused by NRA members ready to reenact Die Hard at all times or is it just a matter of being afraid of guns? What should be pulled back? According to a quick Google search, 41% of American households have at least one gun and the average gun owner owns 8 guns, twice as many as two decades ago. A 2007 survey shows that there are 112.6 guns per 100 citizens out there, that's 1.126 guns per capita. There are literally more guns in America than people, and that's strictly legally owned, registered guns. How do you responsibly control that? An interesting subject that I'd love to talk about, now that we're finally done with (perceived?) racism.

Increased background checks, elimination of background check loopholes, banning guns if one is on the terror watch list, banning particular kinds of guns that are more likely to cause mass damage, etc. are examples of arguably reasonable gun regulations liberals want.

 

[RevPokemon]

That's fair, but you wouldn't admit to owning an "illegal gun", whatever that might mean, in a survey - it's illegal. There's no reason for you to admit to owning something that can get you thrown into the slammer.

To be honest i see it alot with people talking about thier guns even when they are not supposed to have them

 

[Foxi4]

Increased background checks, elimination of background check loopholes, banning guns if one is on the terror watch list, banning particular kinds of guns that are more likely to cause mass damage, etc. are examples of arguably reasonable gun regulations liberals want.

I'm okay with background checks, however those only bind legal gun owners - illegal guns are still an issue. Moreover, background checks are already incredibly stringent as it is, although it does depend heavily on the state. The problem here is that "getting a gun" is not the hard part of the equation - the hard part is to get someone to kill a bunch of people, to quote one of my favourite podcasters. If you want to commit an atrocity, you can just as easily plow a truck through a crowd, the death toll will be the same if not higher, we've seen that happen recently. People on a terror watchlist should fail the background check anyways, so that's just reiterating the same point. People with the mindset of a mass murderer and the intention to cause damage can build a bomb with nothing more than off-the-shelf detergents or fertilizer, where there's a will there's a way. Guns are just tools, it's people who do tge killings.

You lose me when you say that certain guns should be banned as I don't quite grasp the point. A bullet is a bullet, they're more or less equally effective against a skull. The problem isn't the type of gun, the problem is mental health which is at an all-time low. That, and education.

I don't think any of those means would lower the instances of gun violence, or gun deaths for that matter. Let's not forget that the overwhelming majority of gun deaths are instances of suicide. The problem that should be addressed is the overall approach towards guns, or gun mentality, to use a populist term. How to do that? Beats me - it's hard to steer cultural development, it sort of develops on its own.

 

[endoverend]

I'm okay with background checks, however those only bind legal gun owners - illegal guns are still an issue. Moreover, background checks are already incredibly stringent as it is, although it does depend heavily on the state. The problem here is that "getting a gun" is not the hard part if the equation - the hard part is to get someone to kill a bunch of people. In the event of a terrorist attack, you can just as easily plow a truck through a crowd, the death toll will be the same, we've seen that happen recently. People on a terror watchlist should fail the background check anyways, so that's just reiterating the same point. People with the mindset of a mass murderer and the intention to cause damage can build a bomb with nothing more than off-the-shelf detergents or fertilizer, where there's a will there's a way. Guns are just tools, it's people who do tge killings.

You lose me when you say that certain guns should be banned as I don't quite grasp the point. A bullet is a bullet, they're more or less equally effective against a skull. The problem isn't the type of gun, the problem is mental health which is at an all-time low. That, and education.

I don't think any of those means would lower the instances of gun violence, or gun deaths for that matter. Let's not forget that the overwhelming majority of gun deaths are instances of suicide. The problem that should be addressed is the overall approach towards guns, or gun mentality, to use a populist term. How to do that? Beats me - it's hard to steer cultural development, it sort of develops on its own.

It's really a tough and ultimately not very productive discussion when there's no reasonable solution to "fix" gun-related violence. I think the measures to prevent those mentally unstable from acquiring guns are already in place, but the bottom line is that they aren't working and no one really knows why or how to solve it.

 

[RevPokemon]

It's really a tough and ultimately not very productive discussion when there's no reasonable solution to "fix" gun-related violence. I think the measures to prevent those mentally unstable from acquiring guns are already in place, but the bottom line is that they aren't working and no one really knows why or how to solve it.

But one issue is they THINK they know how to fix it.

 

[Foxi4]

It's really a tough and ultimately not very productive discussion when there's no reasonable solution to "fix" gun-related violence. I think the measures to prevent those mentally unstable from acquiring guns are already in place, but the bottom line is that they aren't working and no one really knows why or how to solve it.

The way I see it, the final line of defense against "bad guys with guns" are the gun store owners. They should be thoroughly trained and able to distinguish between normal customers and potentially dangerous individuals. Take the Orlando shooter as an example - he couldn't buy body armor specifically because the gun store owner found him suspicious. Denial of sale can be a great asset in gun violence prevention.

 

[RevPokemon]

The way I see it, the final line of defense against "bad guys with guns" are the gun store owners. They should be thoroughly trained and able to distinguish between normal customers and potentially dangerous individuals. Take the Orlando shooter as an example - he couldn't buy body armor specifically because the gun store owner found him suspicious. Denial of sale can be a great asset in gun violence prevention.

In a sense background checks do this very much tho.

 

[endoverend]

The way I see it, the final line of defense against "bad guys with guns" are the gun store owners. They should be thoroughly trained and able to distinguish between normal customers and potentially dangerous individuals. Take the Orlando shooter as an example - he couldn't buy body armor specifically because the gun store owner found him suspicious. Denial of sale can be a great asset in gun violence prevention.

Good on the Orlando guy, but I think as a whole, gun store owners wouldn't be eager to halt a purchase of one of their expensive weapons because someone "looks suspicious"-- especially since the accusations of racism and a million other isms would pour in based on denied sales. It's an ideal solution, but IMO not likely to happen.

 

[Foxi4]

Good on the Orlando guy, but I think as a whole, gun store owners wouldn't be eager to halt a purchase of one of their expensive weapons because someone "looks suspicious"-- especially since the accusations of racism and a million other isms would pour in based on denied sales. It's an ideal solution, but IMO not likely to happen.

We can't pretend that they aren't humans. Would you sell a gun to someone if your gut feeling told you that the customer might be a mass shooter? No, I doubt that you would. There's no shortage of gun sales anyways, they wouldn't lose much revenue. As for the -isms, they're in a particular trade that does require profiling, whether we like it or not.

In the UK we have a "Think 25" rule. Essentially, adult merchandise cannot be sold to people who *look* under 25 even though the legal age is 18. The 7 year gap is supposed to allow the store staff to profile the customer by visually assessing their age with some margin of error - that's "ageism", however nobody's complaining because there's no fair way to do this short of checking everyone's ID's which would paralyze retail, especially since in the UK there is no legal requirement of owning an ID. The same can and should apply to guns - use your gut. If your logic applied, UK stores would not ID people who look under 25 because it'd lower their profits - that's not the case, partially thanks to Mystery Shoppers making sure that the mechanism is functioning.

 

[vayanui8]

terror watch list

I feel like pointing out that a big issue here is that the terror watch list has no standards for who is put on it. It has numerous errors on it including people who clearly shouldn't be there. A US Senator was once put on the terror watch list. If we were to ban every single person on the terror watch list from owning a gun, we would need to seriously need to reevaluate how it is put together because as it stands people are put on there too easily

 

[Futurdreamz]

I agree with this characterization. I think Secretary Clinton would largely enforce the status quo, which I believe is very preferable to the negative change Donald Trump would bring.

Please don't selectively pick what to quote from me. I also said: "As an external observer I honestly believe the states are heading down the path to a messy revolution. Trump could direct the revolution so it happens more graceful, but Clinton will let the problems and resentment build up until the call for blood rings loud and clear."

The American status quo is not a good status quo, and it is deteriorating quite badly. I'd rather not have to post yet another detailed and comprehensive wall of anti-American rant, but if you take a moment to compare your media and politics to other countries it can become quite clear that things aren't looking good; and seem to be getting worse at a steady pace. The whole constitution was formed around the idea of taking power away from a government that abuses it, but it had the effect of giving the power to corporations and individuals that abuse it even more.

 

[Foxi4]

Please don't selectively pick what to quote from me. I also said: "As an external observer I honestly believe the states are heading down the path to a messy revolution. Trump could direct the revolution so it happens more graceful, but Clinton will let the problems and resentment build up until the call for blood rings loud and clear."

The American status quo is not a good status quo, and it is deteriorating quite badly. I'd rather not have to post yet another detailed and comprehensive wall of anti-American rant, but if you take a moment to compare your media and politics to other countries it can become quite clear that things aren't looking good; and seem to be getting worse at a steady pace. The whole constitution was formed around the idea of taking power away from a government that abuses it, but it had the effect of giving the power to corporations and individuals that abuse it even more.

Boy, oh boy - if only individuals and corporations had as much power as people give them credit for, we wouldn't have half the problems we're dealing with everyday, and not just in the U.S. but globally as well.

 

[Lacius]

@Foxi4
I understand your point, but evidence shows that increased gun regulation does result in fewer instances of gun violence, particularly with regard to mass shootings. When it's more difficult to get a gun, particularly for people who arguably shouldn't have one, it's more difficult to get a gun for everybody, not just legal gun owners. I'm in no way arguing that gun regulation will entirely eliminate gun violence or illegal gun sales.

As for types of guns, I don't believe there's any reason for citizens to have military-style assault weapons or high capacity magazines that have the only useful effect of mass death.

 

[Foxi4]

@Foxi4
I understand your point, but evidence shows that increased gun regulation does result in fewer instances of gun violence, particularly with regard to mass shootings. When it's more difficult to get a gun, particularly for people who arguably shouldn't have one, it's more difficult to get a gun for everybody, not just legal gun owners. I'm in no way arguing that gun regulation will entirely eliminate gun violence or illegal gun sales.

What evidence? You could lower gun violence to close to zero percent by outright banning guns altogether, but what would that achieve? People would still kill each other, just with knives, cars or guns they made themselves. The gun is not the issue, killers are the issue, so it's the mentality that needs to be addressed.

As for types of guns, I don't believe there's any reason for citizens to have military-style assault weapons or high capacity magazines that have the only useful effect of mass death.

That's subjective trite. I can own a high-cap automatic rifle because I just like to shoot recreationally, what gives you the authority to tell me what I can and can't own? The usefulness of a gun is up to the end user, not you. Besides, both issues have been addressed with little to no effect - for instance AR-15's are now semi-automatic with magazines of up to 10 rounds and a shorter, covered up clip release mechanism which makes quick reloading impossible - what did that solve? Nothing, it's only inconvenient for legitimate users.

You know what would actually help? If each and every citizen was familiarized with guns, so that they don't fear them. Everyone should go on at least one trip to a range in later high school years. That'd deflate a lot of the unreasonable fear of guns, because it is unreasonable.

 

[RevPokemon]

@Foxi4
I understand your point, but evidence shows that increased gun regulation does result in fewer instances of gun violence, particularly with regard to mass shootings. When it's more difficult to get a gun, particularly for people who arguably shouldn't have one, it's more difficult to get a gun for everybody, not just legal gun owners. I'm in no way arguing that gun regulation will entirely eliminate gun violence or illegal gun sales.

As for types of guns, I don't believe there's any reason for citizens to have military-style assault weapons or high capacity magazines that have the only useful effect of mass death.[/QUOTE

 

[Lacius]

What evidence?

Australia is a go-to case when mass shootings were common, gun regulation was enacted, and they haven't had a mass shooting since 1996. There are other examples around the world.

You could lower gun violence to close to zero percent by outright banning guns altogether

I agree, but that's not something that's going to happen. Gun regulation can happen.

People would still kill each other, just with knives, cars or guns they made themselves. The gun is not the issue, killers are the issue, so it's the mentality that needs to be addressed.

Yes, but mass death will be minimized with gun regulation. A knife doesn't typically account for 50 deaths at a time. Guns are definitely an issue, but I'm not saying they're the only issue. It's also an easy issue and the bare minimum we can do.

That's subjective trite. I can own a high-cap automatic rifle because I just like to shoot recreationally, what gives you the authority to tell me what I can and can't own? The usefulness of a gun is up to the end user, not you.

As we've gone over before, someone's freedoms are going to be violated regardless of what we choose to do. I value the freedom to not die in a mass shooting over the freedom of some people to have automatic rifles for recreation. Some people are going to want to have their automatic rifles, but I don't personally care. I don't have any authority except logic behind me. With regard to the usefulness of a gun, someone once said that a person who uses an automatic rifle to hunt, for example, probably isn't a very good hunter. We regulate weapons of mass destruction all the time. I don't believe certain types of guns are any exception just because more people want them for recreational reasons.

Besides, both issues have been addressed with little to no effect - for instance AR-15's are now semi-automatic with magazines of up to 10 rounds and a shorter clip release mechanism which makes quick reloading impossible - what did that solve? Nothing, it's only inconvenient for legitimate users.

We've had AR bans in the United States that reduced mass shootings for a time, and other countries have had similar bans with success. As for high-capacity magazines, there is a strong correlation between fewer rounds and fewer deaths in a shooting. The 2011 Tucson shooting, for example, was as deadly as it was because the high capacity of the rounds (33, if I remember correctly), and it only wasn't worse because of the shooter had to stop to reload. The more a shooter has to stop to reload in a shooting, the statistically fewer deaths.

You know what would actually help? If each and every citizen was familiarized with guns, so that they don't fear them. Everyone should go on at least one trip to a range in later high school years. That'd deflate a lot of the unreasonable fear of guns, because it is unreasonable.

I'm not saying this wouldn't help in any way, but for most of the victims of mass shootings, I don't think familiarization with guns would have saved them. The issue isn't fear of guns; it's wanting practical reform that minimizes mass shootings.

 

[RevPokemon]

We've had AR bans in the United States that reduced mass shootings for a time, and other countries have had similar bans with success. As for high-capacity magazines, there is a strong correlation between fewer rounds and fewer deaths in a shooting. The 2011 Tucson shooting, for example, was as deadly as it was because the high capacity of the rounds (33, if I remember correctly), and it only wasn't worse because of the shooter had to stop to reload. The more a shooter has to stop to reload in a shooting, the statistically fewer deaths.

Remember the ban was supported by Ford and Reagan so its not like you can say it is liberal. It is an American safety issue.

 

[Lacius]

Remember the ban was supported by Ford and Reagan so its not like you can say it is liberal. It is an American safety issue.

I agree with everything you just said, particularly when one looks at the current polling on gun regulation, but unfortunately, it has become a Democrat vs. Republican issue as far as elected officials are concerned. In addition to being an American safety issue, it's a liberal issue now.

 

[Foxi4]

View attachment 57828

Ah, Ronald, the conservative superhero. He's right, an AK-47 isn't a sporting gun and there are probably thousands of better guns for home defense. Thing is, I still want one, so don't tell me that I can't have one - it's none of your business.

Australia is a go-to case when mass shootings were common, gun regulation was enacted, and they haven't had a mass shooting since 1996. There are other examples around the world.

I agree, but that's not something that's going to happen. Gun regulation can happen.

Yes, but mass death will be minimized with gun regulation. A knife doesn't typically account for 50 deaths at a time. Guns are definitely an issue, but I'm not saying they're the only issue. It's also an easy issue and the bare minimum we can do.

As we've gone over before, someone's freedoms are going to be violated regardless of what we choose to do. I value the freedom to not die in a mass shooting over the freedom of some people to have automatic rifles for recreation. Some people are going to want to have their automatic rifles, but I don't personally care. I don't have any authority except logic behind me. With regard to the usefulness of a gun, someone once said that a person who uses an automatic rifle to hunt, for example, probably isn't a very good hunter. We regulate weapons of mass destruction all the time. I don't believe certain types of guns are any exception just because more people want them for recreational reasons.

We've had AR bans in the United States that reduced mass shootings for a time, and other countries have had similar bans with success. As for high-capacity magazines, there is a strong correlation between fewer rounds and fewer deaths in a shooting. The 2011 Tucson shooting, for example, was as deadly as it was because the high capacity of the rounds (33, if I remember correctly), and it only wasn't worse because of the shooter had to stop to reload. The more a shooter has to stop to reload in a shooting, the statistically fewer deaths.

I'm not saying this wouldn't help in any way, but for most of the victims of mass shootings, I don't think familiarization with guns would have saved them. The issue isn't fear of guns; it's wanting practical reform that minimizes mass shootings.

What did I tell you? The conversation always devolves into irrational fear of guns. You talk big about the "freedom to not be killed in a mass shooting", but instead of addressing the issue of why mass shootings take place, you want to address guns, as if the guns are the problem and not the mass shooters. Like I said earlier, it's no different to me than saying that "I know not all muslims are terrorists, but a lot of them are, so we need to impose control over them in some way". It's the same thing, you're just dressing it up nicely. They're both generalizations, surely that's evident. I prefer to assume that people are innocent rather than guilty, at least when it comes to the government.

Getting accustomed with guns would do several things, but in context it would minimize the paralyzing fear that people experience when facing them. A gun can have 10 or 300 bullets, it still only has one barrel shooting at a time (with the one notable exception being MetalStorm-based guns which are stupid). There's no shortage of cases where groups or even single individuals disarmed an assailant simply because they weren't paralyzed by fear. I would love to see you trying to "disarm" a man driving a truck straight into a gay parade.

As for the whole capacity argument, I take issue with it, but I'd have to look into the stats to have an educated opinion. As for Australia, you're not accounting for a number of variables here besides gun control - there's no telling what impact simple social change had over the years. The U.S. is still relatively lax and it's safer than it's ever been, crime rates are at an all-time low yet the media consistently present news as if you were in a state of civil war. That contributes to violence too - the media constantly keeping the nation fearful is stressful and ultimately damaging to mental health, I'm not surprised so many Americans snap.