FL Debates #1: Gun Control

[Project]

-Support (For normal people)
+Support for the mentally ill
Most shootings are caused by people with mental issues, these need to be addressed. However, maybe I want an assault rifle because it makes me feel good. I would hope people who were right in their minds would not abuse the constitutional right to bear arms.
Note: My family and I own almost every type of gun imaginable, we use them for target practice and hunting (self-defense if needed). We follow the gun laws in our state (Ohio) and currently do not have any issues with them, as there are few and they are reasonable.

Most of the mentallly ill people act normal until one time the snap and there goes the shootings again. So its pretty difficult to spot them.

[goigle!]

1. If you can get your hands on a gun, the chances are so can your attacker.
   
2. Even if you have a gun, do you know how to use it? How to load, aim, fire, toggle the safety, stop it from jamming? I doubt many people will go to a shooting range.
   
3. If you did have a gun and you did get attacked, chances are you won't even be able to get it out or the attacked might just take it from you if you did
   

-support for me
1. Yes, but even if you can't your attacker still could. Drug Cartels in Mexico stole weapons from the government (both the Mexican and American) and use those to intimidate the local population who are subject to strict gun laws.
2. That's just silly. If you buy a car, you learn to drive it (usually before your buy one). A gun is no different.
3. This is simply not true, it all depends on the situation.

I don't mind gun control in Europe if it is working there. It would not work in America. There's already too many guns and we also have cartels just south of the border so there's a slim chance people in the border states (excluding California) would be willing to give up any guns they already have.

Switzerland has a culture where less gun control is working. (Gun crime stats for Switzerland)

Florida (where I live) used to have a murder rate that was 36% above the national average. After they passed a law authorizing people who earned a permit (passing a gun course basically) the murder rate dropped to 4% below the national average.

[Davidson]

1. If you can get your hands on a gun, the chances are so can your attacker.
   
2. Even if you have a gun, do you know how to use it? How to load, aim, fire, toggle the safety, stop it from jamming? I doubt many people will go to a shooting range.
   
3. If you did have a gun and you did get attacked, chances are you won't even be able to get it out or the attacked might just take it from you if you did
   

-support for me
1. Yes, but even if you can't your attacker still could. Drug Cartels in Mexico stole weapons from the government (both the Mexican and American) and use those to intimidate the local population who are subject to strict gun laws.
2. That's just silly. If you buy a car, you learn to drive it (usually before your buy one). A gun is no different.
3. This is simply not true, it all depends on the situation.

I don't mind gun control in Europe if it is working there. It would not work in America. There's already too many guns and we also have cartels just south of the border so there's a slim chance people in the border states (excluding California) would be willing to give up any guns they already have.

Switzerland has a culture where less gun control is working. (Gun crime stats for Switzerland)

Florida (where I live) used to have a murder rate that was 36% above the national average. After they passed a law authorizing people who earned a permit (passing a gun course basically) the murder rate dropped to 4% below the national average.

Gurgle, I would to hear your response apon my opinion in the first page. About why Americans can't handle easy access to weapons.

[goigle!]

As a Danish myself, I agree with your point of view of most people here. However for the sake of debate I would like to give another reason for banning gun control.
So as you point out there is a lot of guns in the US, however the same can be said of Canada if we are talking about guns pr citizens. And you don't see this kind of shootings in Canada. So why is that?
Well if you have seen "Bowling for Columbine" then Mr. Moore points out that the difference in media and social structure. Media in the sense that the US media tense to be very dramatic and create fear. While in Canada the media is more like our two countries. Social stucture in the sense that ghettos ain't really a thing there and that Canadians don't fear each other.
So Micheal Moore point is this, as long as Americans have this culture of fear then we should make strict gun control.

I'd say the issue is media along with the lack of the ability to force treatment to the mentally ill. The media has an indirect effect in that messages that people intend to be taken one way (Republicans putting a map up with crosshairs for certain towns that they are trying to win over, one of which Gabrielle Giffords was later shot in) can be misinterpreted by people who have mental illnesses and either take the message too seriously or create their own message out of it and start to harm people.
There's also the fact that the media gives too much coverage of violence. As Gavin de Becker pointed out in the Gift of Fear, some mentally ill people that want attention see violence on the media and how much attention that gets people and then they do violent acts just to get the attention.

America also lacks the ability to treat people that are mentally ill, for a reason that is perceived good (the idea we'd rather let a guilty man go than an innocent man rot). It used to be easier to treat someone for mental illness (without their consent), but there was one court case where a man was unjustly put in a mental hospital for something like 2 decades by his family and the court then set a precedent that you need proof that someone is a harm to either others or themselves to force them to be in a mental hospital. In the case of the mentally ill with guns, that usually means they have to either say they're going to do it or actually do it in order to get treated unless they seek treatment themselves.
The other part of this is that there have been people who could have been locked up but people mistook what they were saying as jokes, as many people have a dark humor. That happens less now as more incidents happen and people are more aware.

I don't really think the issue is ease of access, I think it's not understanding how to approach that ease of access.
If you're going to let pretty much anybody have a rifle and then outright ban all weapons at schools for everyone (excluding on duty police), and you don't always have an officer stationed there, nothing is stopping somebody from taking a gun and shooting. I'm not advocating teachers having guns, but I am saying that there should be some form of armed security (even if it is a one man) to act as a deterrent. It wouldn't even have to be an extra guy, one of the school security guard positions could come with extra training.
The reason malls and schools and other areas like those are targeted is because they're soft targets. Light security and lots of people.
The reason there isn't more security there pretty much comes down to money. People will always think it won't happen to them (and statistically that's fairly true) and thus aren't willing to lower their profits (in the case of malls) or spend money they could use elsewhere (in the case of schools).

[Soviethooves]

As an assault rifle firing, range shooting, gun cleaning American, I'd like to post my opinion.

Now, just to be clear here, most of the people who posted on this thread are European. In the U.S., it's quite easy to get your hands on a weapon. You can just head down to the local Gander Mountain to grab one, with your I.D., etc, of course; or you could just get rifles and pistols, etc. inherently. You can even get a concealed carry permit to carry a weapon in public. It also matters where you live in the U.S. As I live in Virginia, we have some more tolerant gun laws, but for those in Maryland, or in New York (city area), it's quite hard. 

Now back on topic. I disagree with the idea of gun control. Mostly because I'm American, and have the sweet feeling of the recoil of a Benelli 12 gauge, the soft touch of Hoppes #9 patches, and the great smell of gun oil. But on a serious note, as an American, I believe we have the right to bear arms, as written in our constitution. Now I may have a different mindset in Europe, but in th U.S., that's my idea of freedom.

Source: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

Falcon could not have stated any better. Gun control in my opinion will never stop criminal related shootings since HELLO criminals have other means of obtaining weaponry. I believe it is better to be armed to defend yourself from the criminals than to let the criminals get the weaponry and the gun smart citizens get a baseball bat. Also I am American so I am obligated to say I love guns .

[Davidson]

As a Danish myself, I agree with your point of view of most people here. However for the sake of debate I would like to give another reason for banning gun control.
So as you point out there is a lot of guns in the US, however the same can be said of Canada if we are talking about guns pr citizens. And you don't see this kind of shootings in Canada. So why is that?
Well if you have seen "Bowling for Columbine" then Mr. Moore points out that the difference in media and social structure. Media in the sense that the US media tense to be very dramatic and create fear. While in Canada the media is more like our two countries. Social stucture in the sense that ghettos ain't really a thing there and that Canadians don't fear each other.
So Micheal Moore point is this, as long as Americans have this culture of fear then we should make strict gun control.

I'd say the issue is media along with the lack of the ability to force treatment to the mentally ill. The media has an indirect effect in that messages that people intend to be taken one way (Republicans putting a map up with crosshairs for certain towns that they are trying to win over, one of which Gabrielle Giffords was later shot in) can be misinterpreted by people who have mental illnesses and either take the message too seriously or create their own message out of it and start to harm people.
There's also the fact that the media gives too much coverage of violence. As Gavin de Becker pointed out in the Gift of Fear, some mentally ill people that want attention see violence on the media and how much attention that gets people and then they do violent acts just to get the attention.

America also lacks the ability to treat people that are mentally ill, for a reason that is perceived good (the idea we'd rather let a guilty man go than an innocent man rot). It used to be easier to treat someone for mental illness (without their consent), but there was one court case where a man was unjustly put in a mental hospital for something like 2 decades by his family and the court then set a precedent that you need proof that someone is a harm to either others or themselves to force them to be in a mental hospital. In the case of the mentally ill with guns, that usually means they have to either say they're going to do it or actually do it in order to get treated unless they seek treatment themselves.
The other part of this is that there have been people who could have been locked up but people mistook what they were saying as jokes, as many people have a dark humor. That happens less now as more incidents happen and people are more aware.

I don't really think the issue is ease of access, I think it's not understanding how to approach that ease of access.
If you're going to let pretty much anybody have a rifle and then outright ban all weapons at schools for everyone (excluding on duty police), and you don't always have an officer stationed there, nothing is stopping somebody from taking a gun and shooting. I'm not advocating teachers having guns, but I am saying that there should be some form of armed security (even if it is a one man) to act as a deterrent. It wouldn't even have to be an extra guy, one of the school security guard positions could come with extra training.
The reason malls and schools and other areas like those are targeted is because they're soft targets. Light security and lots of people.
The reason there isn't more security there pretty much comes down to money. People will always think it won't happen to them (and statistically that's fairly true) and thus aren't willing to lower their profits (in the case of malls) or spend money they could use elsewhere (in the case of schools).

Thanks for the answer.  You're talking about putting armed police around schools, malls ect. No other western country does this or have the need for it. So what's so different in the US compared to the other western countries. For this question you answers is that the US dosn't know for to treat mental people. However I would argue that most people that does this kind of shootings never show signs before they do their act. Take Columbine fx: the characteristic that was show by the two shooters was alot like myself at that age. However I havn killed anyone.

Also to those that says when criminals have guns, victims should to. To those I say that there is a higher killed rate among victims for those who had a gun than those who didn't. I myself have been rob when I was still in the house and I just hid. Then I called the police and they came to late, however an arm cam got the face of the criminal and he is now in jail for 4 years. I also got all the stolen items back I'm pure cash by the insurance. Point being... in the modern world, you don't need to have a weapon to protect you. You have a government. (Ofc if you think the police force of the US isn't professional and effective, then just ignore my point.)

[goigle!]

Thanks for the answer.  You're talking about putting armed police around schools, malls ect. No other western country does this or have the need for it. So what's so different in the US compared to the other western countries. For this question you answers is that the US dosn't know for to treat mental people. However I would argue that most people that does this kind of shootings never show signs before they do their act. Take Columbine fx: the characteristic that was show by the two shooters was alot like myself at that age. However I havn killed anyone.

Also to those that says when criminals have guns, victims should to. To those I say that there is a higher killed rate among victims for those who had a gun than those who didn't. I myself have been rob when I was still in the house and I just hid. Then I called the police and they came to late, however an arm cam got the face of the criminal and he is now in jail for 4 years. I also got all the stolen items back I'm pure cash by the insurance. Point being... in the modern world, you don't need to have a weapon to protect you. You have a government. (Ofc if you think the police force of the US isn't professional and effective, then just ignore my point.)

They did show some signs that they were going to harm people I believe on a blog and in some other forms.

And for your second point, that's great for Europe and I completely agree with you for Europe. In America, things are different which is why states have different laws about guns. Some states are very rural and it might take the police some time to respond. You might have a crying baby in the house making it impossible to hide (there has been a case in Florida [castle law state] where a lady shot a man breaking into her house to protect her baby). If you're alone it's much easier to hide, if you have an entire family it is much easier to grab a gun as someone is breaking in and shoot them.

Also, the second amendment also comes in part as a cultural thing. The idea is that as long as we have guns we are not defenseless against a tyrannical government. It also makes us able to quickly rise to defend our country in case of attack (which obviously is not very likely anymore).

[Davidson]

Alright so.

1. About not being alone, as I stated before armed victims has a bigger chance of dying than those who do not in a robbery. The robber isn't some evil man who just robs to hurt people. No statistics shows that's it's likely a drug addict that just wants to get his next high. He will likely not hurt anyone that isn't a threat to him.

2. You start talking about the second amendment. Even as Im not an american, I have to tell you that you're wrong, the second amendment wasn't made to rebel foreign attackers or invaders, but instead to make sure that the public can keep the government in check by having the exact same firepower as the military. One problem though.. it was written in the times where muskets was the main weapon. Apply the second amendment correctly today and that would mean that everyone should have their own drones. Which I at least do not agree with.

[SixPackSoCali]

Alright so.

1. About not being alone, as I stated before armed victims has a bigger chance of dying than those who do not in a robbery. The robber isn't some evil man who just robs to hurt people. No statistics shows that's it's likely a drug addict that just wants to get his next high. He will likely not hurt anyone that isn't a threat to him.

2. You start talking about the second amendment. Even as Im not an american, I have to tell you that you're wrong, the second amendment wasn't made to rebel foreign attackers or invaders, but instead to make sure that the public can keep the government in check by having the exact same firepower as the military. One problem though.. it was written  in the times where muskets was the main weapon. Apply the second amendment correctly today and that would mean that everyone should have their own drones. Which I at least do not agree with.

"keep the government in check by having the exact same firepower as the military" 

"it was written in the times where muskets was the main weapon"

Now the main weapon for the government is an assault rifle, therefore the people need good weapons. The founding fathers weren't stupid. The bill of rights was written to stand the test of time.

"Apply the second amendment correctly today and that would mean that everyone should have their own drones. Which I at least do not agree with." You don't need a drone when you have millions of armed Americans knocking at your door step. Not even drones defeated the Taliban who have worse weapons...

[goigle!]

Alright so.

1. About not being alone, as I stated before armed victims has a bigger chance of dying than those who do not in a robbery. The robber isn't some evil man who just robs to hurt people. No statistics shows that's it's likely a drug addict that just wants to get his next high. He will likely not hurt anyone that isn't a threat to him.

2. You start talking about the second amendment. Even as Im not an american, I have to tell you that you're wrong, the second amendment wasn't made to rebel foreign attackers or invaders, but instead to make sure that the public can keep the government in check by having the exact same firepower as the military. One problem though.. it was written  in the times where muskets was the main weapon. Apply the second amendment correctly today and that would mean that everyone should have their own drones. Which I at least do not agree with.

1. Show me some statistics please, because in Florida stats have shown concealed carry lowered the violent crime rate

2. I said that, defense against a tyrannical government. I didn't mean a foreign one, I meant should the US government become tyrannical but I was very vague I guess.
The second amendment isn't about having "the exact same firepower as the military." Britain had massive warships, the colonists did not. Also, the colonists had to keep weapons in their home to defend themselves from sudden British attack which is what I was referring to in my previous post.