Not really seeing as the states in the US with the least gun crimes are the ones that don't 'crack down' on guns so to speak. There are countries with way less guns per capita and yet more gun related homicides or crimes.

A lot of points people bring up in gun debates just don't make sense to me. For example, people propose a ban on assault rifles in the US while the vast majority of murders are not committed with assault weapons, they're committed with handguns. The problem is essentially selling guns to people without proper mental health checks.

Just to clarify: I'm not pro guns whatsoever, but a gun debate reaction to incidents like this is miss framing the issue

I live in Canada, so paint this with that Canadian brush

Wouldn't the ideal be get rid of handguns? They serve no purpose. If only law enforcement was allowed to own handguns.. sure you'd still have people use hunting rifles or whatever they get their hands on for shootings. But if nobody had handguns in their house or on their person.. boy would you not see numbers of gun homicides go down? I realize it's wishful thinking to just press a button and magically all handguns would disappear. And 3D Printing is about to make that all a lot more interesting. But handguns. They're for killing people, nothing else. If nobody has them, you don't need one for self-defense.

You'd think it's the logical solution and it sounds right in theory, but criminals or people wishing to do others ill won't be stopped by doing this. The regions in the US that tried to apply this actually have the most gun deaths. You're just less likely to pull a gun on people in a store/on the street if you know that other bystanders have a concealed weapon of their own they can pull out.

Again, I don't like the idea of everyone owning a gun but it's not how you're going to solve the issue of mentally ill people that wish to do others harm. On a somewhat related note, a terrorist that actually got on the Thalys from my country was actually stopped by Americans simply because they recognized the sound of the rifle being loaded. The rifle was illegally obtained here and nobody nearby would have been able to do anything. It's a scary thought to me seeing as I took that specific train a few months ago :(

this is terrible

sorry to break it to you but u seem to be one of the people i was mocking.
i dont understand how anyone can think guns arent the problem when its so obvious that this happens so much less often in countries without guns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHLEXPoiFy4

"gun ownership isn't the problem though"

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

Compare the UK with the US. Dont give me the bullshit that owning guns isn't the problem.

On the topic of gun control

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE

"• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people"

And those countries have way less guns per capita. Exactly what I was saying? You're comparing the UK, surrounded by the sea to a country bordering on countries with cartels and higher gun deaths. Not very nuanced and further adds to the fact that criminals can obtain guns regardless

Mock me all you want, but that doesn't make it correct. I just genuinely dislike it when certain types of media try to turn it into another gun debate for the sake of political votes gained from emotional arguments while ignoring the background of the murderer and his personal history. Hell I'm getting baited into this myself which makes me part of the problem

mr robot didnt air wednesday due to this

Sorry to say this but "guns dont kill people people do". When it comes to mental illness in america we are terrible. The only real thing that the US government does against mental illness is prison. If someone in the mental state really wants to have gun he will somehow get the gun or somehow kill the victim another way.

-

I was actually initially referring to Honduras, Venezuela , El Salvador, Jamaica, Swaziland, Guatemala, Colombia, South Africa, Brazil, Panama, Uruguay and Mexico. Though all of those aren't countries, like Somalia right?

-

Are you seriously comparing the US, a developed country, to places and countries like El Salvador and Jamaica? I compared it to the uk because they are both more economically developed countries. Your comparing salt and steel, im comparing steel and steel, if you would.

http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2014/03/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-the-u-s-to-rest-of-the-world/

Look at the firearm homicide rates from the us compared to other high income countries.

And yes people do kill people, not guns. But when you give someone something that can kill people easily it gets to a point where its ridiculous. Think of a US without guns, if would be much harder for people who want to kill others to do so right? They'd have to use knifes or other means of committing homicide. But your giving people a weapon that can fire at 100's if not thousands of feet per second. What chance does that give innocent people of surviving and what chance does it give the assaulter of actually succeeding and becoming a murderer.

"If someone in the mental state really wants to have gun he will somehow get the gun or somehow kill the victim another way." And how easy is it to get a gun in the US compared to getting a gun in the uk? A lot. My proof? My first source, the guardian. Average number of gun per person in England and Wales, 6.6, avergae number of guns per person in the United states, 88.8.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE&t=4m39s

Guns are for beta bitches like this guy who don't know how to actually deal with their problems.

My point with the comparison to the UK was that you're ignoring the fact that the UK is solitary, while the US borders on what other people here like to refer as "third world shitholes". It's here where's there's more gun crimes and those cartels.

the us literally has borders with 2 countries in total lol

vote for trump and he will make a super mexican-US border and maybe your gun problems and crime will be fixed!

Okay, bordering might not have been the best choice of words, granted. What I meant was being in close proximity. Certainly closer than the UK and the countries they're referring to as being "third world shitholes", which I do not agree with.

I know you're not being serious, but this isn't what I was suggesting at all, don't twist it towards that

My point still stands.
http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2014/03/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-the-u-s-to-rest-of-the-world/

Compare the US with any other country on that list that has banned guns in their country. It's still the same result. You cannot deny the fact that there's a correlation between a country having legalised guns and increase in gun homicides or homicides altogether for that matter and countries who havent legalised guns and their homicide rates (with and without guns.)

Read the stats for yourself. There are countries there who are bordered to other countries or are even more bordered compared to the US and still have lower gun homicide rates. Why? Because they have banned guns.

Getting a gun even illegally is probably considerably easier in the US compared to other developed countries. Why? Because there's simply more fucking guns there. Why? Because they're legal. I'm not a politician and I live in the UK so I'm not arguing the fact that we need to ban guns now. That's not to say I don't care about what's happened, I do.

Idk why people think banning guns would do anything if it can't realistically be enforced.
Just look at prohibition - sure, sale and manufacture of alcoholic drinks was banned but many people still had access to the booze they already had and all it really did is increase the amount of criminal activity as people turned to bootleggers and the mafia for their drinks. Banning guns would just add firearms and ammunition to the list of illegal goods that are peddled within the US, right next to LSD, meth and MDMA.
Even if, somehow, every gun owned by a U.S. citizen was confiscated without the white house being burnt down by angry mobs of gunowners, it really wouldn't solve anything. Guns are surprisingly easy to self manufacture - ranging from slam fire shotguns, which basically consist of two pipes and a striker, to homemade submachine guns, firearms will always be available to people with the knowledge or connections no matter how hard you try. With the advent of 3D printers, it'll be nearly impossible to truly regulate the illegal manufacture of firearms. The only way to limit the usefulness of homemade guns would be to control the ammunition, and at this point that's impossible thanks to the billions of bullets stored in American homes.
There's also the economic view. Sure, it may lower gun-related incidents if guns were harder to get, but gun and ammo sales leave almost 10 billion to the federal and state governments. It's the same reason that cigarettes (which are nearly unanimously harmful to one's health) are legal and will never become illegal while marijuana (which have similar harmful effects but also has beneficial effects to those suffering from mental disorders) is still illegal under federal law - one can easily be taxed and regulated, the other cannot. It's no coincidence that the same bureau that controls alcohol and tobacco is also in charge of firearms - they're all things that Americans are addicted to, and all provide a sizable amount of tax revenue to the government.
So instead of trying to pass a law that's impossible to enforce to begin with (US government can't afford to reimburse gunowners of the value of their firearms, and it's impossible to recall every bullet that was sold), we should try to solve the problem in a way that can actually be enforced. A more strict psychological screening process is a step in the right direction that can actually be implemented, and I don't think anybody would argue against that.

yes mashpit you cant completely stop gun crime that easily but making it so that not 88% of your population own one would probably be a good start. its ridiculous to think that there will ever be a world without any gun crime but we can probably lower the amount of it by making it less easy to do

sorry double post airport internet is bad

You just missed the entire point.
Yes, it would reduce gun crime rates if guns were removed, but it is logistically impossible to do so.
Not only would the costs be astronomical, but there's absolutely no chance in hell that a majority of the house of representatives, then the senate and then the president himself would agree to amend one of the ten amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights. They would basically be committing suicide in the political world to pass a law that isn't even guaranteed to be permanent, and no self-serving politician would do such a thing.
It's simply not possible to account for every bullet that has been sold since the advent of machined parts.
Gun sales are also beneficial to the U.S. economy - have you ever thought about the fact that crime rates will likely skyrocket when people who were employed in the firearm industry are now jobless and desperate, and have knowledge that makes them invaluable to those who want to manufacture firearms illegally?
There's just a whole lot of shit that's related to the gun industry that would make it so that it would not only be extremely difficult to get rid of guns in the first place, but the chain of events that such a thing would cause may cause more damage and deaths than what gun homicides can ever hope to do in a hundred years.

Also you're just making shit up when it comes to saying that the 88% of the population owns guns, rofl. The US has 88 guns per capita, but there's no guarantee that each citizen only owns one gun. The actual percentage of gunowners in the total population is 32%, as of 2014. I'll also add the tidbit that a 32% gun ownership rate is a record low in 40 years.

Other people have refuted your other points but I feel like I need to refute this one.

The reason for this is because those stats have lower homicide rates, but vastly higher suicide rates. The suicide rate in the U.S. is double the homicide rate. Men and women attempt suicide at very similar rates, but men are much more "successful" because they use guns. There's a part of the U.S. referred to as the "suicide belt", which basically constitutes Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, etc. Demographically, these are the states with the largest proportion of older white men, living alone in an isolated, rural setting, with access to firearms.

Obviously I'm not arguing that suicide is morally as reprehensible as homicide. However, when you then go on to conflate "gun homicides" with "gun deaths", it feels pretty skewed without discussing this other area where gun ownership makes a giant impact.

I hate these conversions but when i see stupid shit like its easier to get illegal guns in USA vs almost any country in Europe my mind fucking boggles, EU countries have no standard for what part is considered a firearm ( The usa considers the receiver the regulated part) Meaning you could just legally buy all the non "firearm" parts from different gun supply shops in Europe and assembly a fully functioning firearm. On top of that the kind of contraband that comes from eastern European countries is almost unheard of in USA, Obtaining fully automatic and destructive devices is far easier in EU.

If you want to focus purely on the murder and violent crimes commit with firearms aspect, The vast majority is organized crime and gang related. American has the biggest melting pot of foreign crime organizations along with it own homegrown street gangs and american mafias etc etc. Efforts to reduce profitability of crimes would vastly effect violent crime rate.