U.S. Gun Laws

[Dupytrens]

Every year gun restrictions are loosened in every state.

At the same time last month Canada totally banned possession of private firearms, with insignigicent exceptions.

 

[Outlawbiker]

We can do that here in AZ too

 

[vihrmin]

U.S. gun laws? We basically don't have any. Go in, buy a few guns and start shooting.
What an embarrassing circus!

 

[Dupytrens]

April 2023.

 

[Me2u1time]

It's not the gun, it's the people! Clearly we have a mental health problem, as anyone who goes into a school and shoots innocent children and strangers is suffering from mental issues. The gun is merely the tool. No matter how tough the gun laws, only people who obey the law will be impacted; criminals will always get theirs! Some of the states with the most strict gun laws have the most shootings.

 

[vihrmin]

The USA has the most guns AND the most shootings. Add it up. You say guns aren't the problem? You need a gun in order to shoot someone, so yes, the guns ARE the problem.

 

[Dupytrens]

Another U.S. state passes legislation to permit any citizen to purchase as many pistol's as they like and to carry them for self-defense openly or concealed 24/7.

 

[Martin·Z]

Considering there are over 400 million guns owned by Americans, I think all of the things have been too late, too little.

 

[wrestle_boi87]

If you take guns away, you are making the law biding citizens defenseless. Criminals do not follow the law and will still get guns and kill others. So them laws of reducing guns or taking them away does nothing but give more power to the criminals.

on a side note are you going to ttake away Axes, torches, chain saws, knives, which can also be used as weapons?

The USA has the most guns AND the most shootings. Add it up. You say guns aren't the problem? You need a gun in order to shoot someone, so yes, the guns ARE the problem.

The thought of wanting to choose a gun to kill someone takes the human brain to do such action, Getting rid of guns wont fix that problem. At that point you are considered a criminal therefore you are not going to follow the law. You will get it from someone, Cartels, any other source available.

So if someone comes to someones house to harm a family with a gun or any weapon, Every American has a god given rightt to defend his/her family, therefore takingg care of thte problem. Otherwise that person will continue to do such crime if you take tthe citizens guns away because thats all you are hurting,

 

[armed_software_engineer]

If you take guns away, you are making the law biding citizens defenseless. Criminals do not follow the law and will still get guns and kill others. So them laws of reducing guns or taking them away does nothing but give more power to the criminals.

on a side note are you going to ttake away Axes, torches, chain saws, knives, which can also be used as weapons?



The thought of wanting to choose a gun to kill someone takes the human brain to do such action, Getting rid of guns wont fix that problem. At that point you are considered a criminal therefore you are not going to follow the law. You will get it from someone, Cartels, any other source available.

So if someone comes to someones house to harm a family with a gun or any weapon, Every American has a god given rightt to defend his/her family, therefore takingg care of thte problem. Otherwise that person will continue to do such crime if you take tthe citizens guns away because thats all you are hurting,

Criminals are not a separate class of individuals; increasing operational friction to get a gun makes everyone less likely to get one, including criminals. Especially in an American context where most shootings are disputes between individuals and not otherwise premeditated. "Axes, torches, chain saws, knives, which can also be used as weapons[sic]" but those have much lower lethality, so with those, it remains assault. With a gun, it becomes a homicide

 

[Dupytrens]

Always bear in mind....

 

[wrestle_boi87]

Criminals are not a separate class of individuals; increasing operational friction to get a gun makes everyone less likely to get one, including criminals. Especially in an American context where most shootings are disputes between individuals and not otherwise premeditated. "Axes, torches, chain saws, knives, which can also be used as weapons[sic]" but those have much lower lethality, so with those, it remains assault. With a gun, it becomes a homicide

A Criminal is a criminal regardless of the person, The gun itself doesnt shoot anyone the person chooses to shoot someone either for a reason of robbery, act of violance due to a heated argument. Tthat is a per cases basis of that persons moal charecter Not the fact they have a gun or any weapon for that matter. So you are saying if someone decides to rob a house which happens more than you think or mass shootings is not premeditated? Surely you have to think about how to do such act before you do it. Taking the guns away doesnt solve the problem in them situations. Their are alot of cases where the Active shooter or intruder whichever the case is was subdued by another Law biding citizen was there carrying as well because the media does not disclose everyhting that is needed.

and regardless it is a weapon no matter how its performed if the individual chooses to say have an ax or torch etc as a weapon thats their so choosing not the guns, torch or Ax the cause of the problem. If the Intent is there then it will 50% happen., You take them away or restrict them too much no one will be able to defend their property or place of business or protect schools from mass shootings etc or it will be harder just for the,


Criminals Dont follow laws so thats what seperates them from the rest as the rest are the ones folowing the laws when possessing their firearm. again if the intent is there doensnt make any difference how it happens, yess you are right it does become "assault with deadly weapon" but doesnt exclude the fact that its a death if the person dies or the person chooses to chop up the body doesnt matter either way.

Always bear in mind....

I agree there. If you break into a house with the intent to rob the family, you get shot dead in the process you are not going to do such act again thats up to whoever your higher power to decide what happens. In the grand scheme of things the act by that same person isnt happening again.

 

[wrestle_boi87]

Criminals are not a separate class of individuals; increasing operational friction to get a gun makes everyone less likely to get one, including criminals. Especially in an American context where most shootings are disputes between individuals and not otherwise premeditated. "Axes, torches, chain saws, knives, which can also be used as weapons[sic]" but those have much lower lethality, so with those, it remains assault. With a gun, it becomes a homicide

IF you committ an act or in progress of doing such you have committed a criminal act if it is not "self defense" The lower leathality doesnt matter I can axe someone til they die the only difference its not as easier to gain such task unlike a gun as it can be done from a distance unlike an axe or torch. It still can kill regardless of the tool/weapon. anything can become a weapon.

 

[armed_software_engineer]

A Criminal is a criminal regardless of the person, The gun itself doesnt shoot anyone the person chooses to shoot someone either for a reason of robbery, act of violance due to a heated argument. Tthat is a per cases basis of that persons moal charecter Not the fact they have a gun or any weapon for that matter. So you are saying if someone decides to rob a house which happens more than you think or mass shootings is not premeditated? Surely you have to think about how to do such act before you do it. Taking the guns away doesnt solve the problem in them situations. Their are alot of cases where the Active shooter or intruder whichever the case is was subdued by another Law biding citizen was there carrying as well because the media does not disclose everyhting that is needed.

My argument is that firearms access makes homicides far more likely. Not crime per se. Firearm access turns what would otherwise be simple assaults into homicides. Most homicides are disputes between parties and where a self-defense argument doesn't make much sense. There's a weaker argument on mass shootings that adding operational friction which itself make mass shootings less frequent; US rates of mass shootings are still the highest in the DM.

and regardless it is a weapon no matter how its performed if the individual chooses to say have an ax or torch etc as a weapon thats their so choosing not the guns, torch or Ax the cause of the problem. If the Intent is there then it will 50% happen., You take them away or restrict them too much no one will be able to defend their property or place of business or protect schools from mass shootings etc or it will be harder just for the,

Intent is often not strong. It's for the most part, temporarily formed and only lasts momentarily. It's thus a matter of degree: keeping the worst-case outcome of intent as assault compared to homicide are different. This argument is a bit circular too since "we need guns to defend against other people with guns and if we ban guns, only criminals will have guns" but most criminals either acquire firearms legally or acquire firearms through through theft from a legal civilian market. Increasing that operational friction to acquire firearms would reduce crime of all sorts. The mass shooting case is a bit of a strawman in any case since most shootings are disputes between people that know each other. Everyone being armed in a business dispute makes it more dangerous for everyone; no one being armed makes everyone safer.

Criminals Dont follow laws so thats what seperates them from the rest as the rest are the ones folowing the laws when possessing their firearm. again if the intent is there doensnt make any difference how it happens, yess you are right it does become "assault with deadly weapon" but doesnt exclude the fact that its a death if the person dies or the person chooses to chop up the body doesnt matter either way.

Assault is a better outcome than homicide for everyone.

 

[armed_software_engineer]

IF you committ an act or in progress of doing such you have committed a criminal act if it is not "self defense" The lower leathality doesnt matter I can axe someone til they die the only difference its not as easier to gain such task unlike a gun as it can be done from a distance unlike an axe or torch. It still can kill regardless of the tool/weapon. anything can become a weapon.

It does matter though! Most crime lasts only for a fleeting moment and since survivorship rates for blunt force trauma and stabbings are higher than shootings, there are substantially improved public health outcomes if crime is done with knives instead of guns

 

[Dupytrens]

The Final Solution.