Is better gun control needed in America?

[Remix]

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/08/us-guns-mexico-drug-cartels

If you don't want to read the article here's the cliff notes version. Mexican drug cartels are using money made from selling their drugs in America to buy guns in the USA and then smuggle them into Mexico (often using the same trucks and tracks used to take the drugs past the border in the first place). These guns are then used to protect drugs and kill people in Mexico.

This begs the question, should something be done to stop the flow of guns back into Mexico? I mean if the drug lords can't get guns as easily then it stands to reason that they'll end up having less to use (due to the increase in time, money and effort needed to get them) which would make the job of the Mexican police and army easier (fewer guns means fewer shots are fired by the cartels) which could have a knock on effect on the amount of drugs than make it stateside which, again would have a big effect on the financial status of the cartels.

But on the other hand there's that whole "Right to bare arms" clause in the US constitution and a lot of people who'll take to the streets in protest if they feel that right is going to be restricted. That's without taking into account organisations like the NRA who have the resources to make it unlikely for many gun control measures to become law. Because hey, even though more guns are used on family members than anyone else people need those things.

From my perspective as a non-American who sees no reason for guns to be freely available to the public (especially goddamn assault rifles), buying a gun should be a lot harder than it is. Guns are things that are inherently dangerous, things that are a whole lot less dangerous aren't legal (Pot says hello), and since over 68% of guns seized in Mexico are bought in the good ol' US of A (additionally high ranking cartel members going on record as saying all of our guns were bought in American gun shops) it's pretty fucking obvious to me that restrictions need to be placed on the sale of guns. Trying to stop more at the border isn't going to work because as the cartels love to prove, there's ways in and out of the US that bypass the guys with sniffer dogs.

If it were up to me Assault rifles, fully automatic rifles and possibly .50 callibre rifles would not be legal at all for civilians who aren't buying guns for a police force. There's no reason to have one that I can see. High powered rifles I'd restrict the sale of. You wouldn't be allowed to have one unless you can provide a valid reason for having one and evidence that your reason is legitimate (i.e. I'm a big game hunter. Here's proof that I am a big game hunter. Can I have my gun now?) I'd also create some sort of centralised register of gun owners akin to the NHSPS in the UK to monitor gun purchases and check for unusual activity (e.g. Lawrence Knight has purchased several rifles from a number of locations). I'd make it optional, but strongly incentivise it (perhaps paying a fee per record sent in with a copy of the recept or a slight tax reduction) Pistols, rifles below a certain calibre or muzzle and shotguns I'd leave the restrictions as they are (albeit with purchases being recorded, if the gun shop choses to do so) because they are less dangerous if they're shipped over. You can't disable a car with a pistol as easily as you can with a .50 calibre rifle.

My questions:

What are your thoughts on the article?
What is your stance on guns and gun control?
Do you think the sale of guns should be restricted in light of the issues raised in the article?

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Most studies show that more gun control leads to a decrease in violent crime. You get supporters saying "well someone will think twice if there's the change you have a gun" but that's purely speculation. It holds no truth in real work studies.

Personally, more gun control IS needed. It scares me that some hick can go get a bunch of weapons. stupid people do stupid things.

The article is a good one, unfortunately a lot of pro guns people are the "dey tuk er jobs" type of people who don't care about mexicans. Guns ARE dangerous. IMO, there shouldn't be any conceal carry. The only guns you should be able to have in your car should be small pistols, unless you're about to go hunting. Rifles should only be those that are legitimate hunting rifles.

Guns should be restricted because unless you are just too stubborn to look at real world evidence, you realize that more gun control leads to less violent crimes. the cartel stuff is collateral damage. It'll never happen because in America we have this fantasy of john wayning somebody trying to rob us.

 

[Davi323]

Most studies show that more gun control leads to a decrease in violent crime. You get supporters saying "well someone will think twice if there's the change you have a gun" but that's purely speculation. It holds no truth in real work studies.

Personally, more gun control IS needed. It scares me that some hick can go get a bunch of weapons. stupid people do stupid things.

This is flat out wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?pagewanted=all

This is from the NYT, hardly an outspoken critic of gun control. What is interesting is the quotes from Justice Stephen Breyer.

a comparison with 49 other major cities reveals that the district’s homicide rate is actually substantially higher relative to these other cities than it was before the handgun restriction went into place.

IE, gun control increased homicide rates, not lowered them.

The article is a good one, unfortunately a lot of pro guns people are the "dey tuk er jobs" type of people who don't care about mexicans.

Wow...nothing a completely ignorant stereotype there to help your case!

Guns ARE dangerous. IMO, there shouldn't be any conceal carry. The only guns you should be able to have in your car should be small pistols, unless you're about to go hunting.

So they can have small guns in their cars, but they can't have any concealed? That seems a little bit hypocritical to me...you are against guns, but are fine with people hunting with them, you are against carrying, but you are okay with keeping one in your car. Your position makes no sense.

It'll never happen because in America we have this fantasy of john wayning somebody trying to rob us.

John Wayne, or the US Constitution? I think you are confused here, TWJC. The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution has been upheld by the Supreme Court multiple times. That is why it will never happen in America, not because of a movie actor.

I know people with guns...they have no fantasy about that at all. In fact, that would be their absolute worst case scenario. Everyone I know would say that they hope they never, ever have to fire their gun in self-defense. But, that they own a gun just in case, as an insurance policy, because you never know for sure that it won't happen to you. It's not because of some fucked up hero complex. It's having a means to defend yourself, not a means to seek trouble out.

This begs the question, should something be done to stop the flow of guns back into Mexico?

A good place to start would be calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to step down. Most people simply ignore the news...google "Operation Fast & Furious" some time. Has nothing to do with street racing, and makes interesting reading.

 

[Sinister Shadows]

Stricter gun control doesn't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, they keep them out of the hands of people who have legit reasons to want to own them. Hunters, collectors, people who want them for last line of self defense.

The easiest way to reduce the amount of drug crime in Mexico is to legalize drugs in America.

 

[Remix]

This is flat out wrong.

This is from the NYT, hardly an outspoken critic of gun control. What is interesting is the quotes from Justice Stephen Breyer.

IE, gun control increased homicide rates, not lowered them.

Number of homicides using a gun in the USA: 7.07. Number of homicides involving a gun in England: 0.07. In England guns are illegal. Additionally, studies (like this one also show that the USA has a massively high amount of gun crime compared to other developed countries. Most of which have more restrictions on guns than the USA). You want to correct that statement?

Wow...nothing a completely ignorant stereotype there to help your case!

Yeah, because people who openly wear guns to polling stations to "protect our right to carry guns" are obviously individuals that take a pro-immigration standpoint.

So they can have small guns in their cars, but they can't have any concealed?

Forgive me if it seems obvious that when someone is in a car and not a public place there are less people to shoot at. And generally if you pull out a gun while you're stranded in a car you're more likely to actually need to use it. Unlike wearing one when you're walking down the street to buy some groceries.

That seems a little bit hypocritical to me...you are against guns, but are fine with people hunting with them,

Animals are not people. Killing them for food or sport shouldn't be illegal. Even in the UK where guns aren't legal you can have one for hunting purposes (or if you're a vet).

you are against carrying, but you are okay with keeping one in your car. Your position makes no sense.

Makes more sence than allowing any average joe to own an assault rifle.

John Wayne, or the US Constitution? I think you are confused here, TWJC. The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution has been upheld by the Supreme Court multiple times. That is why it will never happen in America, not because of a movie actor.

And the reason people think they need guns is because they think they're neccesary to protect their families, even though it's considerably more likely that it'll be used on a family member than a burgler. Truely a great method of self defence.

I know people with guns...they have no fantasy about that at all. In fact, that would be their absolute worst case scenario. Everyone I know would say that they hope they never, ever have to fire their gun in self-defense. But, that they own a gun just in case, as an insurance policy, because you never know for sure that it won't happen to you. It's not because of some fucked up hero complex. It's having a means to defend yourself, not a means to seek trouble out.

Then those people are still fucking morons because, and I repeat this a gun owned for self defence is considerably more likely to be fired at a family member than an intruder. I'll also go out and say that guns enable more crimes to be committed than they prevent.

A good place to start would be calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to step down. Most people simply ignore the news...google "Operation Fast & Furious" some time. Has nothing to do with street racing, and makes interesting reading.

And what would getting him to step down do? It still leaves the problem that any Tom, Dick or Hernandez who lives in Texas can buy all the guns that are needed for the drug war in Mexico without any difficulty. When the hardest part of getting supplies is rounding up enough people to buy the stuff then there's never going to be any meaningful reduction in cartels doing just that.

 

[Davi323]

Wonder why you left out another meaningful stat? You know, the part about how violent crimes NOT involving guns has skyrocketed in the UK. Assaults, robberies and burglaries in the UK are well above the rates in the USA.

All the UK gun ban did was prove that if you take the guns away, people will simply find other ways to harm you. Why did you leave that out? Why did you focus solely on handgun violence, and not violence in general? Because you know that when it comes to overall violent crimes, the UK is far worse than the USA. But, you don't want to mention that, because it hurts your case. You want to paint this rosy picture of jolly ol' England where nobody hurts anyone else, compared to your ridiculous image of America, where we all challenge each other to duels in the streets, gun people down, etc. You claim guns enable crime, when the opposite happened in your own country. Get rid of guns, crime rate skyrocketed.

Your little wild west fantasy about what America looks like is nothing but bullshit. In fact, here is something you wouldn't know, because you wouldn't have bothered to look it up:

The legal gun owning population of America, that is, those Americans who legally own a firearm, has a much lower crime rate than the general population. IE, legal gun owners commit less crimes in America than non-gun owners do. You are just too stupid to realize that all those gun crimes committed in the USA are caused by people who own them ILLEGALLY. People who own guns ILLEGALLY don't give a fuck about gun bans.

Who said anything about owning assault rifles? I didn't. I was referring to pistols and other handguns, not carrying around uzis, M-16s or something.

Now it's about Texas? You are all over the place. Is this thread about stopping gun trafficking, banning automatic assault rifles, or gun control laws in general? Can't tell, because you are rambling about all sorts of different things.

 

[Larry]

Wonder why you left out another meaningful stat? You know, the part about how violent crimes NOT involving guns has skyrocketed in the UK. Assaults, robberies and burglaries in the UK are well above the rates in the USA.

In all fairness, there was more to your the article you cited than what you let on and directly contradicted the very things you were saying, in that article. Let me refer you back to it, here is the very next statement from the individual you quoted from the same article

Those statistics by themselves prove nothing, of course. Factors aside from the gun ban, like demographics, economics and the drug trade, were almost certainly in play. “As students of elementary logic know,” Justice Breyer wrote, “after it does not mean because of it.”

Here is some more from that very article:

A 1991 study in The New England Journal of Medicine compared Washington to its suburbs before and after the gun law took effect. It found that the law was linked to a 25 percent drop in homicides involving firearms and a 23 percent drop in such suicides. The study found no drops in other kinds of homicides and suicides in Washington, and no changes in the suburbs.

I think this just goes to show you that you can't stop people from committing crimes, but you can take actions to prevent the manner in which they are committed, some being less lethal than others.

Also, since we've already established that the UK has outlawed guns period, virtually all violent crimes in the UK will be "violent crimes NOT involving guns" therein making the statistic higher by the nature since they are not as readily available as here in the USA. You may argue that having guns there will reduce these crimes but that is merely speculation. You also stated and I quote:

All the UK gun ban did was prove that if you take the guns away, people will simply find other ways to harm you.

That kind of goes without saying though doesn't it? The point is that people ARE having to find other means. There, the violent and lethal guns aren't just available at will for anyone ready to go shoot up a school (see Virginia Tech), hold up a corner store, or mug someone walking down the street. You also don't see the homicide rate as a result of guns or other gun related deaths either intentional or accidental including suicides that we do here in America. Even here in the states it is a known fact that those who feel the need to have a gun in their home for protection from intruders, more often than not end up having the gun used on them, which leads me still to see no real benefit in having them.

They're dangerous and simply give people the ability to harm one another in a more violent and lethal way which isn't good for anyone. You can argue that legal holders of guns commit fewer gun crimes than those who possess them illegally, but still you have the problem of guns in the hands of people willing to harm others with them. As for assault rifles and such, you think the average American who owns a gun is packing AK's, M-16's, and Uzis? No, it's still the violent criminals who are getting them illegally and using them on innocent civilians or other criminals. Nonetheless, they are a problem and are just as readily available to criminals as the handguns you say civilians need or want for protection through legal means.

The correlation between stricter gun laws and higher gun related crimes is pretty self explanatory. The stricter laws limiting their availability and the legality of their possession directly affects it inherently. It makes it illegal for more people to have them, and makes the acquisition of them through certain means illegal, as more laws are in place that equals more crimes to be broken via their possession and procurement. There are plenty of criminals who still have guns legally as well, and when you make it harder for them to get legally, you then will see an increase in the number of criminals with illegal guns.

All in all I think guns are horrible. I don't think anyone needs a gun or should own one. I think it just makes it easier for people to hurt or kill other people, and that a society without them in general is a safer society. Crime will always exist, but with the existence of guns it just creates an environment where everyone is at deadly risk. I don't really care if you want to hunt, you want one for protection, anything. I think guns are one of the worst things man ever invented.

 

[Davi323]

All in all I think cars are horrible. I don't think anyone needs a car or should own one. I think it just makes it easier for people to hurt or kill other people, and that a society without them in general is a safer society. Crimes will always exist, but with the existence of cars it just creates an environment where everyone is at deadly risk. I don't really care if you want to drive, you want one for transportation, anything. I think cars are one of the worst things man ever invented.

Betcha didn't know that cars kill more people each year than guns do. Following your logic, unless you ride a bicycle or walk everywhere you go, you are a hypocrite.

 

[GI Cake]

I don't understand the point of gun control in the first place. The main concern to why Americans should not be allowed to own is a gun is so it can lower crimes like Robberies and murder. Or that if someone has access or owns a gun allows them to meditate on the idea of committing a crime. Owning a gun can save your life more than a knife or formal training in hand to hand combat when it comes to keeping safe in your home. The fact that someone may or may not own a gun can be the difference in a group of fools breaking into your apartment in the middle of the night. When you put a ban on buying firearms you are stopping people to be able to defend themselves from the people who could care less about the law.Future criminals who want to kill someone or rob a store obviously don't care about the law. So what is a gun ban going to stop someone from going about and getting a gun through illegal means like from the Mexican drug cartels or even peddlers on the streets of Washington D.C?

With that said however, I do believe their should be some restriction to when it comes to gun sales in the United States. Americans need a firearm to defend themselves, or even go hunting. But by no means does a common person need access to an assault rifle or any fully automatic weapon for duck hunting or personal defense. The recent shooting in Arizona is a perfect example as to why we need some sort of control on what weapons and attachments people are buying. Why would some Army reject need an extend clip on his handgun for no other reason than walking into a supermarket and go guns blazing?


Do Americans need gun control? Absolutely. Would a simple gun ban do the trick? Never.

 

[Davi323]

The thing is, a lot of those measures are in effect already. First, there is the 7 day waiting period before you are allowed to purchase, during which, a criminal background check is run against you to determine if you are allowed. Anyone who has been convicted of any felony whatsoever is automatically barred, as well as someone convicted of certain misdemeanors, such as domestic violence. Anyone with ANY history of mental health issues is also prevented from legally purchasing a firearm of any type.

Then, in most states, in order to be allowed to carry a concealed weapon (or in some states carry openly) you have to obtain a license for that too. Those are not handed out freely, can be costly, and take a long time.

It's also illegal for anyone to import, manufacture or deal firearms without a Federal license to do so.

I think a lot of misinformed Europeans who think they know what they are talking about when it comes to the prevalence of guns in America really have no clue. They think that we are all playing Cowboys and Indians, that we all harbor fantasies about being John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, or some shit. It's ridiculous, because they have no clue other than what they see in TV shows. They think all we do is hide around corners, looking for cover in the hopes that a gunfight breaks out.

Did you know that since 1997, the year the UK enacted their zero tolerance stance on firearms, that the homicide rate there has actually gone up 15%? Bet not.

Now, I will concede on ONE point. Governmental bodies issuing firearms licenses should require the purchaser to be able to pass a gun training/safety exam, similar to how a person applying for a drivers license should have to pass a drivers education class. This makes sense to me, and does not infringe on anyone's Constitutional rights. If I have to pass a test to drive a car, it seems fair that I should have to pass a test to operate a firearm.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

This is flat out wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?pagewanted=all

This is from the NYT, hardly an outspoken critic of gun control. What is interesting is the quotes from Justice Stephen Breyer.



IE, gun control increased homicide rates, not lowered them.



Wow...nothing a completely ignorant stereotype there to help your case!



So they can have small guns in their cars, but they can't have any concealed? That seems a little bit hypocritical to me...you are against guns, but are fine with people hunting with them, you are against carrying, but you are okay with keeping one in your car. Your position makes no sense.



John Wayne, or the US Constitution? I think you are confused here, TWJC. The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution has been upheld by the Supreme Court multiple times. That is why it will never happen in America, not because of a movie actor.

I know people with guns...they have no fantasy about that at all. In fact, that would be their absolute worst case scenario. Everyone I know would say that they hope they never, ever have to fire their gun in self-defense. But, that they own a gun just in case, as an insurance policy, because you never know for sure that it won't happen to you. It's not because of some fucked up hero complex. It's having a means to defend yourself, not a means to seek trouble out.




A good place to start would be calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to step down. Most people simply ignore the news...google "Operation Fast & Furious" some time. Has nothing to do with street racing, and makes interesting reading.

Davi, I never look at statistics with state vs state as far as gun control and crime goes. If I want to murder someone in a state with gun control, I can just go to one without. Or if I'm a mexican drug deal, I can get one there too. Like Kotre said, it's not so much that you can control the crimes, but you can control how they're committed. Countries with more gun control have less gun-related crimes. Guns are pretty damn dangerous and I'd rather get robbed at knife-point than gunpoint. So if it came down to it, I go for gun control.

However, even that may not be the answer because at this point, there are so many guns in circulation and people LOVE guns here, so it may not even matter.

As for my stereotyping, yes, most people who are huge proponents of arming yourself are how I said. I don't have a stat, but I bet if I looked it up, there would be a strong correlation between anti immigration and pro guns.

My stance on guns are basically that they shouldn't be in public and the only guns you should have should be for a practical use.

I will say this, just like in the conservative thread, it's not so much "more vs less" it's HOW the regulation and control would be enacted.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Davi is right that gun control laws are not effective in lowering crime rates. There are a lot of objective studies you can look at and most of them say the same thing, which is that gun control laws generally aren't significantly effective in lowering crime.

What's not so black and white is looking at illegal firearm availability and crime. There are many studies that show that illegal firearm availability is positively correlated with increased crime, and that lower illegal firearm availability does not result in increased crime with other weapons, like blunt objects or knives.

Gun control laws don't do anything significant because it's restricting firearm access to people that are looking to obtain firearms legally, not criminals that are going to obtain them illegally. Where Davi and I likely disagree is that I don't like guns at all, for citizens or for criminals - from a moral standpoint, but that's not what this is about. What the United States needs to do is have legislation or policies that target illegal firearms because that's the problem.

A good question would be the relationship between places where guns are very prominent (legally) and the prominence of illegal guns.

 

[Davi323]

Okay, that's fair. The problem is that darned Constitution that is the basis of American law. There is no way that you could ban guns in the USA entirely. Not only would it piss a lot of people off (and by people, I mean VOTERS), but any such ban would definitely be unconstitutional. There is simply no chance that any such ban would ever survive legal challenges. You can't ban guns entirely. I agree about illegal guns...there are way too many of those. I have no problems with programs that dispose of them, whether it's voluntary, through bribery (pay people) or whatever. I am incredibly appalled that things like Operation Fast and Furious ever happened. I also fully support mandatory gun training/safety classes for all hopeful purchasers. I don't know if we can ever fully get rid of the illegal guns any more than you could completely get rid of illegal drugs, but we can damn sure see that the legal gun owners treat their guns with respect, not as toys, and that they fully understand their responsibility as a gun owner.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Okay, that's fair. The problem is that darned Constitution that is the basis of American law. There is no way that you could ban guns in the USA entirely. Not only would it piss a lot of people off (and by people, I mean VOTERS), but any such ban would definitely be unconstitutional. There is simply no chance that any such ban would ever survive legal challenges. You can't ban guns entirely. I agree about illegal guns...there are way too many of those. I have no problems with programs that dispose of them, whether it's voluntary, through bribery (pay people) or whatever. I am incredibly appalled that things like Operation Fast and Furious ever happened. I also fully support mandatory gun training/safety classes for all hopeful purchasers. I don't know if we can ever fully get rid of the illegal guns any more than you could completely get rid of illegal drugs, but we can damn sure see that the legal gun owners treat their guns with respect, not as toys, and that they fully understand their responsibility as a gun owner.

Going off what you've said here, even if the United States banned firearms I'm not sure it would have that significant of an impact anyway, there would still be illegal guns.

If I were in charge of sorting out of the problem I would probably look into other factors that lead to violent crime: education, socioeconomic status, poor neighbourhoods, and lack of any meaningful options are several of these factors. There's going to be gun crime no matter what, but the evidence shows it's more effective to go after the factors that lead people to obtain illegal firearms, not the firearms themselves.

 

[Davi323]

Going off what you've said here, even if the United States banned firearms I'm not sure it would have that significant of an impact anyway, there would still be illegal guns.

If I were in charge of sorting out of the problem I would probably look into other factors that lead to violent crime: education, socioeconomic status, poor neighbourhoods, and lack of any meaningful options are several of these factors. There's going to be gun crime no matter what, but the evidence shows it's more effective to go after the factors that lead people to obtain illegal firearms, not the firearms themselves.

In the long term, I would agree with this statement as well. By figuring out the factors that lead to violent crime, not only would that reduce gun related crimes, but it would reduce all other forms of violent crime as well. It wouldn't just reduce illegal gun usage, but it would reduce the numbers of rape, assault, stabbings, etc too.

Gun control is a very strange subject for me. I support the Constitutional right, but at the same time, I have absolutely no problems with bans on automatic assault weapons. I support the right to carry being applicable across all state lines, like a driver's license is, making it easier to transport, but I also want to make it a little harder to get a firearms license in the first place. I support gun owners, but don't own a gun. Truth be told, it's all kind of paradoxical. There is no simple answer to be had.

Although, the snarky part of me asks this: Given that the Constitution guarantees American citizens the right to bear firearms, why aren't the gun control people smart enough to figure out that the 2nd Amendment only refers to the guns themselves, and not to the ammunition used? Gotta think outside the box a little.

You want to reduce gun crime without trampling on the Constitution? Go after the bullets instead.

 

[J.J.]

In the 2000 election Al Gore wanted to address gun control but people got upset and interpreted it as him banning firearms and they started screaming about the amendment. I feel the US could learn a lot from Switzerland, where about every home owns a firearm - yet their crime rate isn't nearly as high as the US.

 

[Davi323]

In the 2000 election Al Gore wanted to address gun control but people got upset and interpreted it as him banning firearms and they started screaming about the amendment. I feel the US could learn a lot from Switzerland, where about every home owns a firearm - yet their crime rate isn't nearly as high as the US.

Doesn't Switzerland also require all of their men to serve in their military? I am sure that a lot of the anti-military liberals in America would LOVE the idea of mandatory conscription into the armed forces...or not.

However, what you missed is the fact that those Swiss citizens who own all of those guns, due to that mandatory service, have been properly trained in how to handle those guns, have been instructed how to be safe with them, and have the proper amount of respect for that firearm to treat it as a potentially dangerous tool, rather than a toy.

Further, those are all legal gun owners. Like in Switzerland, legal gun owners in America have a very, very low crime rate. In fact, legal gun owners in America have a much lower crime rate than the general population. The problem in America is not legal gun owners, it never has been. The problem in America is, and always will be, the prevalence of illegal firearms, that is people having guns they aren't legally allowed to have, unregistered firearms, etc.

The people that are responsible enough to purchase their firearms through the proper legal channels, registering it with the prevailing authority, waiting to pass the background checks, etc. are simply not the ones committing the crimes. They are not going to be lawbreakers in general, they are responsible citizens acting responsibly, respecting the law. They aren't the problem.

 

[Calderownz]

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/08/us-guns-mexico-drug-cartels

If you don't want to read the article here's the cliff notes version. Mexican drug cartels are using money made from selling their drugs in America to buy guns in the USA and then smuggle them into Mexico (often using the same trucks and tracks used to take the drugs past the border in the first place). These guns are then used to protect drugs and kill people in Mexico.

This begs the question, should something be done to stop the flow of guns back into Mexico? I mean if the drug lords can't get guns as easily then it stands to reason that they'll end up having less to use (due to the increase in time, money and effort needed to get them) which would make the job of the Mexican police and army easier (fewer guns means fewer shots are fired by the cartels) which could have a knock on effect on the amount of drugs than make it stateside which, again would have a big effect on the financial status of the cartels.

But on the other hand there's that whole "Right to bare arms" clause in the US constitution and a lot of people who'll take to the streets in protest if they feel that right is going to be restricted. That's without taking into account organisations like the NRA who have the resources to make it unlikely for many gun control measures to become law. Because hey, even though more guns are used on family members than anyone else people need those things.

From my perspective as a non-American who sees no reason for guns to be freely available to the public (especially goddamn assault rifles), buying a gun should be a lot harder than it is. Guns are things that are inherently dangerous, things that are a whole lot less dangerous aren't legal (Pot says hello), and since over 68% of guns seized in Mexico are bought in the good ol' US of A (additionally high ranking cartel members going on record as saying all of our guns were bought in American gun shops) it's pretty fucking obvious to me that restrictions need to be placed on the sale of guns. Trying to stop more at the border isn't going to work because as the cartels love to prove, there's ways in and out of the US that bypass the guys with sniffer dogs.

If it were up to me Assault rifles, fully automatic rifles and possibly .50 callibre rifles would not be legal at all for civilians who aren't buying guns for a police force. There's no reason to have one that I can see. High powered rifles I'd restrict the sale of. You wouldn't be allowed to have one unless you can provide a valid reason for having one and evidence that your reason is legitimate (i.e. I'm a big game hunter. Here's proof that I am a big game hunter. Can I have my gun now?) I'd also create some sort of centralised register of gun owners akin to the NHSPS in the UK to monitor gun purchases and check for unusual activity (e.g. Lawrence Knight has purchased several rifles from a number of locations). I'd make it optional, but strongly incentivise it (perhaps paying a fee per record sent in with a copy of the recept or a slight tax reduction) Pistols, rifles below a certain calibre or muzzle and shotguns I'd leave the restrictions as they are (albeit with purchases being recorded, if the gun shop choses to do so) because they are less dangerous if they're shipped over. You can't disable a car with a pistol as easily as you can with a .50 calibre rifle.

My questions:

What are your thoughts on the article?
What is your stance on guns and gun control?
Do you think the sale of guns should be restricted in light of the issues raised in the article?

Personally, I don't think anything involving the guns and laws will change much. The simple fact of the matter is that it's not the laws that keep us safe or in danger. It's mindsets. And if the mindset doesn't change, nothing will.

We could outlaw every single gun, and someone that wants to kill you will just say, "Great. Where's my knife?"

I'll grant you that guns do make it easier. But, I will also say that guns don't make the concept of murdering someone in the first place easier. You have to want to kill someone in order to kill them. All there is to it. (I'm excluding accidental murders/killings and rare instances when someone makes a mistake as this article isn't really talking about those sorts of circumstances.)

The concept that a human life isn't worth much is what has to change. Laws will do nothing. It's not as though criminals will say, "Oh, the laws changed. There goes my illegal gun/drug smuggling cartel." Criminals, by nature, break laws.

If anything, outlawing guns would only keep lawful people without a legitimate means of defending themselves in the instance of an emergency.

I'm not a huge gun nut type guy either. As a matter of fact, I used to own a gun and then got rid of it as I found no use for it and am only now deciding whether or not I want to own another one. (I will probably LEGALLY purchase one within the coming months. Reason: I have decided to get into long-range shooting as a hobby.)

 

[Jack-Hammer]

There's a huge difference between gun control & abolishing the 2nd Ammendment. The idea of abolishing the legal sale & ownership of firearms leading to an end of violent crime in America is, unfortunately, a pipe dream. Like it or not, firearms helped to build America. It was a war against England that ultimately led to the American colonies becoming a free nation in and of itself and it was the continued use of and improvement upon firearms that ultimately allowed to the United States expanding "from sea to shining sea". Better weapons meant that settlers & soldiers would have an easier time defending themselves from and taking land from Native American tribes. I'm not proud of that, but it happened, there's nothing I can do about it and it came about because of superior weapons technology.

Guns have become ingrained into our national consciousness whether we like it or not. Comparatively speaking with the vast majority of the countries of the world, the United States is very young. The United States came into being via firearms when most of the countries in the world we know & recognize today were long since established before the use of firearms. Countries in Europe, Asia, Africa and other parts of the world were ultimately forged using the sword, she shield, the spear and the bow & arrow. It was also unique in the United States that weapons, such as guns, could be bought & owned by any citizen whereas most conventional weapons in the old countries could usually only be afforded by or be legally owned by the wealthy social classes.

I have no problem with careful & responsible adults owning guns. The problem is that guns too often wind up in the hands of the very people that any reasonable person wouldn't want to have them. It's easier to buy a gun in this country, legal or otherwise, than it is to obtain a driver's license and I don't think that was the way it was intended to be. There are so many loopholes in the law that gun manufacturers and gun merchants exploit in order to get their product in the hands of virtually whoever wants them that it makes the gun laws we currently have look like jokes. Those loopholes in the law were ultimately crafted by attorneys & politicians that, in some cases, owe much of the success in their careers due to the gun industry & the money that the industry pays them and/or contributes to their political campaigns & causes. I've gone to a couple of gun shows in my time out of curiosity and it's scary at those places. In every booth or table I stopped at, I was offered the opportunity to buy guns without any restrictions. They didn't ask me to see my I.D., they didn't ask if I'd been convicted of a felony, they didn't offer to run a background check, they didn't even ask if I was a legal resident. As long as I was willing to pay the cash, I could buy what I wanted there and then. That's an example of the irresponsibility that has so many people against guns in the first place. For all any of those vendors knew, I could've been a deranged serial killer that liked to use guns as a means of sexually assaulting my victims before killing them. Not that they'd care as long as they got paid. Many of the "punishments" for violating gun regulations amount to little more than a slap on the wrist anyhow.

There's also massive amounts of propoganda put out there, sometimes by those in right wing politics, sometimes by the gun companies themselves, sometimes by paranoid conspiracy theorists, sometimes by people that are totaly clueless, etc. that stricter gun control is some automatic prelude to the abolishment of the 2nd Ammendment. I've even heard people say that you're a Communist or even a traitor if you believe in stricter gun laws.

Aside from owning a gun, I also have the right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. As far as I'm concerned, my right to keep breathing outweighs the right of a strung out crackhead with a rap sheet longer than John Holmes' dick to own a 9mm because some gun store owner was too lazy or greedy to do the right thing.

 

[H33LTurn]

In situations like these there is a definite need for better gun control. It is one thing to speak on Americans who are protected under the constitution for their right to bear arms in the event that their safety is in danger, but to allow non-Americans the opportunity to purchase weapons so easily, weapons we know will only aggravate the situation in Mexico is to be completely insensitive of the innocent individuals who live there. Its sad that we are so willing to sell jet planes to people in the Middle East, even though that entire region hates us, but when it comes to helping out a location where most of America's labor force comes from we turn a blind eye. As long as the government benefits from something they'll let it be. The government will always turn a blind eye to drug smuggling, trafficking, violence, gang activity, etc. as long as they can make a quick buck out of it.

 

[SavageTaker]

I'm sure everyone has heard this phrase at one point or another: "Guns Don’t Kill People… People Kill People."

Unfortunately, that really is true. It's people who kill each other because of one reason or another. So really, as much as I'd like for there to be stricter gun control, it's not possible.

If a criminal wants a gun, he'll find a way to get a gun legally or illegally. He either knows a guy or he knows a guy that knows another guy. Either ways, that criminal is eventually going to get his hands on a gun and eventually he or she will probably use it with bad intentions. Therefore, we can't have super strict gun control because the reality is that people do live in bad neighborhoods and sometimes something like having a gun around makes them and their family feel safer. And it's not just people in bad areas, it's people in general anywhere you go.

If there was a way to make sure that no criminal ever has a gun, then I'd be all for having much more strict gun control laws because then people might not need them as much. But because there really isn't a way currently, nor do I think there will ever be a way that is significant enough to make a difference, I'm somewhat okay with people having guns as long as they aren't lunatics and don't take it to an extreme level such as having 20 different types of guns in their house because that's just asking for trouble especially if you have infants around and don't really have them in secure places where they won't get to them.

So overall, I do think we need stricter gun control when it comes to things like rifles like you mentioned Kotre, but I don't think we can really do much about other weapons like handguns. I don't think people should be allowed to buy 20 different types of guns but if they find a good enough reason then they'll probably get it their way and hopefully no tragedy comes out of it.