Two questions for gun control people

[Q9]

My views on this subject are based mainly on three experiences:

1. I grew up in a country where few people feel the need to own a gun and getting a licence isn't easy. After two massacres, assault rifles and then hand guns were banned. Gun control doesn't completely solve the problem because weapons can still be obtained illegally by criminals but experience suggests that they usually use them against each other.

2. On my first trip to Miami, I was warned not to look at people in other cars while waiting at traffic lights or to get involved in road rage. The reason given was that many people carried guns and use them for the weakest of reasons. That was a real shock.

3. There are more guns where I live now and many are illegally owned. Gun crime seems to be on the increase in vacation areas and I think that burglaries may increase too. My Thai wife can have a gun licence and we now have a gun for protection in and close to the house and will soon buy a .22 rifle to cover the whole property. She doesn't plan to apply for a carry licence in the foreseeable future.

To give my answers to your questions:

1. Assault weapons have no use in self defence and have been used recently in massacres in the US. They are, probably, the most obvious and generally accepted type of weapon for either more control or a complete ban. I can accept that hand guns are used more often, especially in individual killings rather than mass shootings. However, I don't think that your national conscience is yet ready to accept much more control over those, even if the facts suggest that it's necessary.

So, the present focus on rapid-fire weapons seems to be a pragmatic move that's probably short of what's really required.

2. I haven't seen much about the discussion of those features that you list. Perhaps high capacity magazines are seen as too convenient for those who want to create a massacre. The other equipment is, presumably, intended to make shooting more accurate. Perhaps there is some concern about the psychological makeup of people who want that kind of equipment. As things stand in the US at the moment, tinkering with minor things like those is irrelevant.

The main issue, looking at it from my own experience, is that it's too easy in the US for people to buy weapons that have no legitimate use in civilian life and too easy for irresponsible people to get hold of a weapon at all. The freedom to carry weapons concealed under clothing for many people is also an issue and encourages two breaches of gun rules: carrying a gun loaded and drinking alcohol whilst carrying a gun.

The main obstacle to sensible gun control seems to be entrenched attitudes one one side and the lack of power on the other to bring about change. For Pete's sake, though, surely something has to change. Other countries have responded to this growing menace of gun attacks on other people so why not give it some thought?

Regarding point #1, in the U.S., a ton of gun violence is gang warfare or otherwise related to the trade in illegal drugs. Not sure what percentage it is, but I can't help but feel a good first step to dropping gun violence here is kicking the legs out from under the gangs and drug cartels.

Regarding #2, not sure who told you that. I live around a ton of gun owners (outside of the cities, gun ownership is pretty ubiquitous) and everyone I've met who carries is very responsible and has excellent self control. There's a common portrayal of Americans as gun-toting lunatics who shoot on a whim, and I feel that it's really unfair to the vast majority of responsible gun owners. Then again, I also don't live in Miami. I'm much more familiar with the dynamics of suburban and rural areas than high-density cities.

As to #3, I presume, based on your name, that you're in Thailand. I've heard it's quite violent there. If I were you, I'd get something a little bit bigger than a .22. How hard would it be to obtain a pump-action 12 gauge?

On to your answers.

#1: I would dispute your claim about having no legitimate use in self-defense; for instance, an AR-15 is lighter-kicking than a shotgun, but is far easier to aim than a handgun. There are cartridges for the gun designed specifically to prevent over-penetration, making it an extremely effective defensive weapon. At the risk of sounding rude (if I come across rudely, I do NOT intend it, unless it's a response to Capvin

), I don't think that "being unnecessary" is a very good argument for banning something. Swimming pools have literally no utility at all, but they kill far more children than guns. Our response, of course, to the dangers of the swimming pool is to establish safety rules and keep a close eye on kids around them. Despite Capvin's know-it-all declaration that ARs and AKs have no use in hunting, they actually do, especially in the areas of predator hunting and invasive species eradication, never mind their ability to be a catch-all weapon for other uses.

I can see what you're saying in regards to the current focus on high-cap guns; that actually makes sense. Political expediency is the reason for a lot of nonsense.

#2: Perhaps I'm basing too much on legislation. You seem to have more common sense (even if I disagree with you) than the politicians who write these bills; they seem hopelessly obsessed with harmless features that only make the gun more comfortable (that's actually the entire point of a collapsible stock; it adjusts to the user's length of pull), if scarier-looking.

To a degree, I agree, in that it is far too easy for the mentally unbalanced to obtain firearms. I just really want to avoid punishing millions of law-abiding Americans for the actions of a few psychopaths. I think we can ALL agree that violent felons have no business getting their hands on firearms, either. They've already forfeited their right to own a weapon by demonstrating that they will abuse it.

I hope you understand when I say that it seems to me that we're able to find a solution to many other problems without bans and massive restrictions, and I'm certain we can do so with violence as well. I realize it's become a cliche at this point, but mental health needs to be a major focus - I've heard that somewhere between eighty and ninety percent of the spree shooters were on psychoactive meds. I'm no doctor, but I think there's a connection.

 

[thaiturkey]

That sounds more like a knee-jerk emotional reaction to me, not change promoted by need.

Try reading the first line of my post again.

Do you believe that regular and increasingly frequent massacres don't indicate that some change is needed?

 

[thaiturkey]

Regarding point #1, in the U.S., a ton of gun violence is gang warfare or otherwise related to the trade in illegal drugs. Not sure what percentage it is, but I can't help but feel a good first step to dropping gun violence here is kicking the legs out from under the gangs and drug cartels.

Regarding #2, not sure who told you that. I live around a ton of gun owners (outside of the cities, gun ownership is pretty ubiquitous) and everyone I've met who carries is very responsible and has excellent self control. There's a common portrayal of Americans as gun-toting lunatics who shoot on a whim, and I feel that it's really unfair to the vast majority of responsible gun owners. Then again, I also don't live in Miami. I'm much more familiar with the dynamics of suburban and rural areas than high-density cities.

As to #3, I presume, based on your name, that you're in Thailand. I've heard it's quite violent there. If I were you, I'd get something a little bit bigger than a .22. How hard would it be to obtain a pump-action 12 gauge?

On to your answers.

#1: I would dispute your claim about having no legitimate use in self-defense; for instance, an AR-15 is lighter-kicking than a shotgun, but is far easier to aim than a handgun. There are cartridges for the gun designed specifically to prevent over-penetration, making it an extremely effective defensive weapon. At the risk of sounding rude (if I come across rudely, I do NOT intend it, unless it's a response to Capvin

), I don't think that "being unnecessary" is a very good argument for banning something. Swimming pools have literally no utility at all, but they kill far more children than guns. Our response, of course, to the dangers of the swimming pool is to establish safety rules and keep a close eye on kids around them. Despite Capvin's know-it-all declaration that ARs and AKs have no use in hunting, they actually do, especially in the areas of predator hunting and invasive species eradication, never mind their ability to be a catch-all weapon for other uses.

I can see what you're saying in regards to the current focus on high-cap guns; that actually makes sense. Political expediency is the reason for a lot of nonsense.

#2: Perhaps I'm basing too much on legislation. You seem to have more common sense (even if I disagree with you) than the politicians who write these bills; they seem hopelessly obsessed with harmless features that only make the gun more comfortable (that's actually the entire point of a collapsible stock; it adjusts to the user's length of pull), if scarier-looking.

To a degree, I agree, in that it is far too easy for the mentally unbalanced to obtain firearms. I just really want to avoid punishing millions of law-abiding Americans for the actions of a few psychopaths. I think we can ALL agree that violent felons have no business getting their hands on firearms, either. They've already forfeited their right to own a weapon by demonstrating that they will abuse it.

I hope you understand when I say that it seems to me that we're able to find a solution to many other problems without bans and massive restrictions, and I'm certain we can do so with violence as well. I realize it's become a cliche at this point, but mental health needs to be a major focus - I've heard that somewhere between eighty and ninety percent of the spree shooters were on psychoactive meds. I'm no doctor, but I think there's a connection.

I think that you and I are in broad agreement, allowing for our different cultural backgrounds. You grew up with guns and I didn't. Many people accept the need for change but changing minds is probably the biggest challenge.

There are pockets of gun violence in Thailand that cause concern. One is way down south in an area given to Thailand by Japan in WWII as a thank you for allowing the Burma railway to cross Thai territory. The locals are mainly Muslim in a Buddhist country and they want independence. The government response has aggravated shootings and bombings. Their is worrying gun violence between rival student gangs from wealthy families in Bangkok. The only problem that concerns us directly is the possibility of an attempted burglary because our home rather stands out from others in the village and it's assumed that foreigners have wealth without limit and keep piles of gold in their homes. The law allows us to shoot any uninvited person on our property so we are taking advantage of that privilege by having appropriate weapons.

 

[chickened]

If we are going to have a debate as a country lets debate violence and the cause and leave the weapon of choice part out as it really has no bearing on the underlying issue of good old violence.

 

[thaiturkey]

If we are going to have a debate as a country lets debate violence and the cause and leave the weapon of choice part out as it really has no bearing on the underlying issue of good old violence.

This thread is about gun control. You could start another thread about violence and weapons in general.

 

[cluckcluckluke]

Kids with Guns- Gorillaz.

 

[Texas Wolf]

Its not the gun that needs to be controlled, rather the YAHOO that is dumb enough to go and kill people. Gun control? In my opinnion is not needed. I mean look back in the earlier 1900's, people then had ALOT more guns than a regular persons household now and back then people weren't crazy killing people! It's not the gun it's the person. Control the psycho that has the balls to shoot someone. What is affecting these younger kids brains? The stupid call of duty violent games that teach a kid about killing, EVEN if it just a game.

 

[thaiturkey]

Its not the gun that needs to be controlled, rather the YAHOO that is dumb enough to go and kill people. Gun control? In my opinnion is not needed. I mean look back in the earlier 1900's, people then had ALOT more guns than a regular persons household now and back then people weren't crazy killing people! It's not the gun it's the person. Control the psycho that has the balls to shoot someone. What is affecting these younger kids brains? The stupid call of duty violent games that teach a kid about killing, EVEN if it just a game.

I suggest that it's both guns and people.

 

[cluckcluckluke]

Its not the gun that needs to be controlled, rather the YAHOO that is dumb enough to go and kill people. Gun control? In my opinnion is not needed. I mean look back in the earlier 1900's, people then had ALOT more guns than a regular persons household now and back then people weren't crazy killing people! It's not the gun it's the person. Control the psycho that has the balls to shoot someone. What is affecting these younger kids brains? The stupid call of duty violent games that teach a kid about killing, EVEN if it just a game.

Yes I agree it is the person that's the problem but what's easier- stoping the guns or stoping the people (you never can trust some one, after all we are animals).
COD is pretty fun though.

 

[Texas Wolf]

You both are right. If there wasn't any guns how would any of this happen? There are gun laws just not being enforced but now they are. BUT, media has a huge part in this. The game may be fun for someone in the right mind, but someone metally ill will not find it funny but more of .. don't know how to explain it haha