New Zealand VS the US on Gun Control

[RAMROD 117,957]

I guess it is easier there cos guns are not as fundamental there. The NZNRA seems more open with changes. 

While in USA, fire arms is a big business. And everything with USNRA is the opposite of NZ.

[Varys 30,916]

1 hour ago, Thotiana said:

Schools have securities already. I went to a school where there were plenty of guards walking around the school. It felt like the damn military. And you definitely don’t want others (besides) the securities to have weapons at a concert where people get drunk and high and fights happen. And you haven’t answered the question. We already are way more armed than other countries, why do we continue to have mass shootings while countries with gun control have less?

The facts that the schools in the usa even need guards is beyond sad to me 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Speechless111 said:

Criminals do not care about gun laws.  Fact

A majority of mass shootings occur in gun free zones.   Fact

The number of defensive gun uses are higher than the number of criminal firearm uses. Fact

Maybe there have been slight decreases in homicide rates in some states where they have implemented gun control, but these laws would not have stopped Sandy Hook, Parkland, Aurora, etc. These mass shooters can easily acquire guns illegally through the black market, guns that are smuggled across the border, or they could steal/take firearms from those that have purchased said weapons legally. 

Gun control simply would not end mass shootings. There is an extreme amount of gun circulation within the US, legal and illegal, and the government cannot ban firearms due to the Second Amendment. Criminals will find a way to get a weapon and use it to commit whatever crime they so choose. The only people who listen to gun laws are law abiding citizens, who are not the ones who would be committing mass shootings. 

 

Lmao you can say fact all you want after ignorant claims but it doesn’t make them “fact” & quoting one unreliable biased source for one fact does not prove anything either. When you have one biased “source” & hundreds of unbiased, science based sources saying the opposite I’d think people would be able to figure out the truth for themselves but evidently not. The majority of mass shootings may occur in gun free zones but those gun free zones are in zones with an extremely high volume of guns. Debating people like you is like debating a wall. You don’t absorb information, you just deflect back to your own ignorant statements. If gun laws don’t “work” then why do countries with gun laws or laws that prohibit gun use all together have no mass shootings?

EDIT: Actually, don’t answer. It’s not my responsibility to educate you.

[Speechless111 21]

1 hour ago, Thotiana said:

Schools have securities already. I went to a school where there were plenty of guards walking around the school. It felt like the damn military. And you definitely don’t want others (besides) the securities to have weapons at a concert where people get drunk and high and fights happen. And you haven’t answered the question. We already are way more armed than other countries, why do we continue to have mass shootings while countries with gun control have less?

I just graduated last year and my school had no security. It all depends on  the place. A criminal would probably target my school, where they could easily get in, instead of another school, such as yours, where there is security everywhere. One thing that the US has that many other countries do not have is a Second Amendment. We have the right to bear arms and thus we have a large quantity of weapons. Since we have this amendment, the government has no right to take guns away from the populace, therefore guns will most likely always be around. Most of the other countries out there with severe gun control laws are much smaller, do not have the same explicit rules giving its citizens the right to bear arms, and do not have the same quantity of weapons circulating in society, making it much easier to regulate gun use. In the United States it would be extremely difficult for the government to ever have a handle on gun use, as it is protected by the Constitution. People do protect others with their guns all of the time, and most likely prevent mass shootings, but it is hard to tell how many have been prevented as the mass shooting never occurred. Of course if there was a society where there were no guns there would be less mass shootings, but the US government has no right to ban them as that would be unconstitutional. Gun control measures in the US might result in a slight decrease in gun crime, but mass shootings will still occur as these criminals will find a way to get a weapon, legally or not, and will perpetrate the crime. 

[PerfectExca 636]

I see both sides. It is sure that criminals do not care about the law obviously,  so I don't think that a gun law would prevent them . And without guns, law abiding citizens would not be able to defend themselves from criminals ( law breaking citizens) that got their guns regardless through unlawful  means. On the other handle stricter gun laws would mean less guns which means less shootings, simply.

 

[Speechless111 21]

34 minutes ago, lovedillon said:

Lmao you can say fact all you want after ignorant claims but it doesn’t make them “fact” & quoting one unreliable biased source for one fact does not prove anything either. When you have one biased “source” & hundreds of unbiased, science based sources saying the opposite I’d think people would be able to figure out the truth for themselves but evidently not. The majority of mass shootings may occur in gun free zones but those gun free zones are in zones with an extremely high volume of guns. Debating people like you is like debating a wall. You don’t absorb information, you just deflect back to your own ignorant statements. If gun laws don’t “work” then why do countries with gun laws or laws that prohibit gun use all together have no mass shootings?

EDIT: Actually, don’t answer. It’s not my responsibility to educate you.

Do you disagree with the statement that criminals do not care about the law? People protect themselves and their families with guns every day. And yes, criminals do target gun free zones. 

Tell me. What gun control measure would have prevented any of the school/ movie theater mass shootings that have occurred in recent history?  

[aaronyoji 2,064]

just because criminals don't care about the law doesnt mean they're willing to go through hoops on the black market to purchase them, think about it, many many mass shooters have been every day, suburban white men who legally already obtained guns. they don't need to go to some shady black  market or smuggle them in, in the south you can buy loads of guns at gun shows!! no need to do it illegally, its just that easy. thats the problem. the accessibility of guns is what makes it so easy for these mass shootings to happen. do you think a young suburban white teen knows how to illegally obtain or smuggle in a gun?? even if they did, they just as easily went into their dad's gun case, broke it open and killed dozens of lives because they where angry at the world or whatever. theres no excuse. guns should not be legal at all anymore. its antiquated. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Speechless111 said:

Do you disagree with the statement that criminals do not care about the law? People protect themselves and their families with guns every day. And yes, criminals do target gun free zones. 

Tell me. What gun control measure would have prevented any of the school/ movie theater mass shootings that have occurred in recent history?  

No I don’t disagree with that statement, by definition a criminal is someone who does not abide by the law or respect it.

The gun control measure that would be most helpful would be background checks, multiple actually. Right now, if you’re 18 you can legally buy a gun. If you’re under 18 you can legally purchase a rifle. Anyone can buy a gun regardless of a criminal history & that shouldn’t be the case. I do not want to “take” people’s guns away & adding background checks, a very basic sort of thing for almost everything including renting an apartment, getting a job etc. shouldn’t be so unreasonable but we have the NRA paying politicians to knock down those law proposals & inject fear mongering propaganda into the public atmosphere so that those who own guns think by enacting background checks they will also lose their guns. Background checks limit those who can buy guns, it reduces the number of guns on the street & will reduce the number of guns criminals are able to get their hands on. If we break one piece in the chain then it will all crumble & the cycle in which criminals get their hands on guns will implode.

[Speechless111 21]

8 minutes ago, lovedillon said:

No I don’t disagree with that statement, by definition a criminal is someone who does not abide by the law or respect it.

The gun control measure that would be most helpful would be background checks, multiple actually. Right now, if you’re 18 you can legally buy a gun. If you’re under 18 you can legally purchase a rifle. Anyone can buy a gun regardless of a criminal history & that shouldn’t be the case. I do not want to “take” people’s guns away & adding background checks, a very basic sort of thing for almost everything including renting an apartment, getting a job etc. shouldn’t be so unreasonable but we have the NRA paying politicians to knock down those law proposals & inject fear mongering propaganda into the public atmosphere so that those who own guns think by enacting background checks they will also lose their guns. Background checks limit those who can buy guns, it reduces the number of guns on the street & will reduce the number of guns criminals are able to get their hands on. If we break one piece in the chain then it will all crumble & the cycle in which criminals get their hands on guns will implode.

I support background checks as well. I am also a strong proponent of our right to bear arms so that we are not left defenseless against criminals and a potentially tyrannical government. There are certain measures that I agree with when it comes to weaponry, but in terms of mass shootings I do not believe that gun control will actually solve anything as these shooters are often deranged and will find a way to commit mass murder if that is what they want to do, regardless of the law. 

[Whispering 18,865]

6 hours ago, Speechless111 said:

 

Tell me. What gun control measure would have prevented any of the school/ movie theater mass shootings that have occurred in recent history?  

Easy-to-obtain assault weapons, once banned under U.S. law, are a common thread connecting many of the deadliest mass shootings that have occurred in the past few years. Many gun violence experts believe that it's time to bring back the federal assault weapons ban — or at least something like it.

“You would see drastic reductions in what I call gun massacres” with the return of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, said Louis Klarevas of the University of Massachusetts at Boston.

For his 2016 book “Rampage Nation,” Klarevas collected data on every gun massacre — which he defines as six or more people shot and killed — for the 50 years before 2016. His aim was to see whether there was any change in the number of gun massacres while the 10-year federal ban on assault weapons was in place.

He calls the results “staggering.” Compared with the 10-year period before the ban, the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37 percent, and the number of people dying from gun massacres fell by 43 percent. But after the ban lapsed in 2004, the numbers shot up again — an astonishing 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths.

Klarevas says that the key provision of the assault weapons bill was a ban on high-capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. “We have found that when large capacity mags are regulated, you get drastic drops in both the incidence of gun massacres and the fatality rate of gun massacres.”

The opinion is shared among many researchers who study gun violence for a living. In 2016, for instance, the New York Times asked 32 gun policy experts to rate the effectiveness of a variety of policy changes to prevent mass shootings. The roster of experts included violence prevention researchers like Harvard's David Hemenway, as well as more ideologically driven gun rights advocates like John Lott.

On a scale of effectiveness ranging from 1 (not effective) to 10 (highly effective), the expert panel gave an average score of 6.8 to both an assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines, the highest ratings among the nearly 30 policies surveyed.

The killers in recent incidents like Las Vegas, Orlando and Sutherland Springs were each able to walk into a gun shop in the days and months before their attacks, and legally purchase their assault weapons and magazines after passing a standard background check. Under an assault weapons ban, that wouldn't be possible.

[lego 44,165]

11 hours ago, aaronyoji said:

just because criminals don't care about the law doesnt mean they're willing to go through hoops on the black market to purchase them, think about it, many many mass shooters have been every day, suburban white men who legally already obtained guns. they don't need to go to some shady black  market or smuggle them in, in the south you can buy loads of guns at gun shows!! no need to do it illegally, its just that easy. thats the problem. the accessibility of guns is what makes it so easy for these mass shootings to happen. do you think a young suburban white teen knows how to illegally obtain or smuggle in a gun?? even if they did, they just as easily went into their dad's gun case, broke it open and killed dozens of lives because they where angry at the world or whatever. theres no excuse. guns should not be legal at all anymore. its antiquated.