Off Topic Poker Forums

How do you suggest we go about lessening guns?

Legislate to limit access to guns, and consideration of which type of weapons should be banned. Licensing. Ban automatic access to automatic weapons altogether (can't see any reason why anyone has a legimate right to carry an AK47 - can you?).

I would've joined the debate earlier but I was away all weekend.

Ban automatic access to automatic weapons altogether (can't see any reason why anyone has a legimate right to carry an AK47 - can you?).

I can't see a legitimate reason to for an untrained civilian to carry any firearms.

8/10 people (or any amount but to a lesser scale) is a disaster waiting to happen, either accidentally shooting someone/themselves, misuse of the firearm, etc.

I disagree with lowering military budgets in order to lower random gun crimes around the States when there are so many bigger fish to fry.

I, for one, truly don't think that the the majority of Americans do this. Which is why when it suddenly becomes the central argument in favour of gun control I am left shaking my head. It makes me wonder who is actually doing the hyperbolizing.

Just because protection from the government isn't something Americans are constantly shivering up in fear over does in no way mean that it's not a very real and important consideration.

I don't think that referencing the hundreds of millions of people that have been killed at the hands of their own government throughout history is hyperbole at all. In fact, it probably isn't stressed enough.

I don't see that the fact that the USA has vast problems, with drug use, a declining education problem and an escalating class gap is an argument for more guns. Isn't this a pretty cut and dried scenario for more irresponsible gun owners. By the way gun violence is escalating pretty rapidly in my country of Canada. Why? Greater access to guns, mainly brought from the USA. Btw I don't think that gun control should end efforts to reduce the violence. I also believe the decades old war on drugs should be completely reenvisioned.

Not sure where anyone made it as an argument for more guns. Rather, the argument was that government-created problems (war on drugs, educational problems etc) make it such that there is more criminals, and thus more violent crimes, whereas you were isolating one factor as the cause for these crimes- the fact that we have less stringent gun laws. And obviously when there's tons of factors involved, isolating one and pointing to causation is not a valid argument.

If I felt so strongly that I and other citizens needed firearms to protect us from the government/gangs/cartels I'd probably just move to any other civilized country that doesn't seem to have these problems.

A) A lot of people have moved to America precisely because we do not face a major threat of violence from the government, whereas in their home countries they have faced that threat. A large reason (admittedly not the only reason) for this is because of our right to bear arms.

B) Where is this Utopia you speak of and where are these highly accurate predictive faculties you speak of? Did you think that the people of Germany knew what Hitler was going to do to them before he came to power, but voluntarily decided to stay in their country regardless?

I want to argue on both sides of this because no one is making strong points. I believe that we should be able to own guns, with some rules. However, the idea that limiting access has no effect on supply is absurd. Especially since we're on a poker forum, where a large percentage of us can no longer play online because it was prohibited (though not even, really).

A) it would limit *overall* supply. That is because it would limit the supply to responsible gun owners. But it wouldn't limit the supply to drug cartels, gangs, and determined psychopaths.

B) Online poker is not really comparable to guns or drugs or other physical goods because it exists on the internet, which is open, public, and visible. The making guns or drugs happens in private locations which are much harder for law enforcement to control. Further, despite these important differences, we all can still play online poker whenever we want. It's a little bit harder to get money online and get things set up, but we can do it. Sure, the games aren't as good because a lot of people don't feel comfortable going through the seemingly shady process (i.e. fish/recreational players), but they can if they wanted to. This is actually analogous to my gun point - the people who really want guns and are willing to go to the black market will get them. And most of these people will be criminals who won't be using them for the right purposes.

I don't think the threat of a government attack is (nearly) a good enough reason to bear arms. I feel like it is pretty much an irrelevant factor given the law was created in case of a British invasion, and if anyone truly felt that there was a high enough threat that the US government would turn on their civilians they would just leave the country and not sleep with a handgun under their pillow.

and thus more violent crimes

Nearly everywhere on Earth violent crimes has been decreasing. (see The Better Angels of Our Nature: How Violence has Declined

Sure - when you have a violent society where you cannot function without needing to produce a gun to defend yourself. I would think a very small % of the US is like that. How many times you used your piece brother????

I didn't say they are needed to be used very often at all. Preferably they are never needed. But it's worse to need it and not have it than it is to have it and not need it. I haven't been to the hospital in over a decade, but that it's obviously absurd to say that I therefore shouldn't think that we should have hospitals.

Yes its obvious. Lessen guns and you will reduce shootings. Solve other societal issues as well.

I don't know if you know something about governments that I don't, but I don't think they are capable of snapping their fingers and magically eliminating guns from the hands of violent criminals, drug lords, cartels, street gangs, and psychopaths - this is Utopia. If somehow they could magically do that, then great I could probably get behind it, but the government can't even deliver the mail efficiently and you want them to do magic tricks?

A) A lot of people have moved to America precisely because we do not face a major threat of violence from the government, whereas in their home countries they have faced that threat. A large reason (admittedly not the only reason) for this is because of our right to bear arms.

B) Where is this Utopia you speak of and where are these highly accurate predictive faculties you speak of? Did you think that the people of Germany knew what Hitler was going to do to them before he came to power, but voluntarily decided to stay in their country regardless?

Give me a break. Your view of the world is severly distorted. The US government cannot be compared to a NAZI state, or a totalitarian regime that the people need protection from. It never has been either. If it was, guns wouldn't help you much against the military - you'd need more serious weapons. You live in a democracy where there is no valid reason for people to carry firearms to protect themselves.

I seriously doubt anyone ever moved to America so they could own a firearm, and if they did, how is that a good thing? Most Western countries ARE highly predictable in terms of crime being mostly under control, as is, most parts of America. Come to Australia or UK - you don't need a gun (snake antivenom yes, but guns, NO.

What do you think of your constitutional rights in regards to Rocket launchers? Do you think the government should exercise control on the sale and purchase of rocket launchers?

Your arguments highlight how ridiculous the gun debate is, and how the average American has been somewhat brainwashed by this ' right to bear arms' argument referring back to the constitution, which has been successfully discredited on other posts above.

I speculate that in most democracies in the world would support a constitution where people 'do not have the right to bear arms'. If you live in a totalitarian regime you won;t have any constitutional rights anyway.

Free high quality education with a strong focus on science, medical care and a good welfare system is the best strategy against crime.

Education would be another debate, but two points:

A) nothing is "free." In fact, "free high quality education" is an oxymoron.
B) Throwing money at it isn't the solution. We have increased the amount of money we spend on education significantly since the 1970s and simultaneously our education has gotten worse. The problem is incentives and a total lack of competition in our school system.

Where should the money come from? Start by reducing the budget of the military by 50%.

I agree with this 100%.

Legislate to limit access to guns, and consideration of which type of weapons should be banned. Licensing. Ban automatic access to automatic weapons altogether (can't see any reason why anyone has a legimate right to carry an AK47 - can you?).

Maybe if we ban weed, alcohol, and cocaine people would stop producing and selling those, too.

I disagree with taking money from the military when there are many other bigger issues across the world to deal with.

The parallel argument to drugs isn't a very good one because you can only hurt yourself (a few exceptions of course).

I don't think the threat of a government attack is (nearly) a good enough reason to bear arms. I feel like it is pretty much an irrelevant factor given the law was created in case of a British invasion, and if anyone truly felt that there was a high enough threat that the US government would turn on their civilians they would just leave the country and not sleep with a handgun under their pillow.

A) There were way more reasons for the law than to serve the purpose of defending against a British invasion.

B) yeah, leave the country and go to another country where there's no threat from the government, despite thousands of years of history and history as recent as 75 years ago that shows that:
1) governments all over the world have killed millions of people
2) governments can change rapidly and unpredictably (you think the people of Nazi Germany knew what was going to happen and yet wanted to stay anyway?)

This leads me to an important point, something Daniel Kahneman calls the availability bias - WYSIATI (What you see is all there is). Just because we currently live in a world where many governments are currently not a threat to their people (and probably all of us on this forum live in these countries), we assume that concern over government violence is unfounded - they ignore the thousands of years of history and even someone recent history that has proven otherwise.

My point is that you don't need to wait for it to happen, if it is truly a concern (and it clearly is if it is necessary to believe you should have the right to bear arms), you can leave now. Second point is how are guns supposed to defend you from the nation with the most advanced military in the world?

Grunching here but...

Banning X has never worked afaik (within reason obv). Let's look at some examples:

Prohibition - Started an underground market where other criminal activity permeated.

War on drugs - We have tons of people in jail who merely used drugs - filling our prisons, and costing us $ in so many ways. Those who want drugs can still get them.

Prostitution - If you go the right areas, you can still get a hooker. The profession is simply more covert, thus more dangerous for those involved.

Breed Specific Legislation (e.g. banning pit bulls) - Prevents good people from owning breed X, while bad people still get them. Does nothing to make things safer, nor does it punish the owners or educate anyone on how to properly care for breed X.


It seems to me that whenever we try to limit the freedoms of adults, it generally does more harm than good.

With all that being said, it's not like we have to reinvent the wheel. I'm not aware of other countries enough to know what has/hasn't worked, but it seems to me that we should just adopt similar policies of countries who have been successful and mirror our setup as close as possible.

Give me a break. Your view of the world is severly distorted. The US government cannot be compared to a NAZI state, or a totalitarian regime that the people need protection from. It never has been either. If it was, guns wouldn't help you much against the military - you'd need more serious weapons. You live in a democracy where there is no valid reason for people to carry firearms to protect themselves.

Do you think that the people of Germany knew what the NAZI state would be like before it rose up, and stayed anyway?

Great example of availability bias and forecasting error in play here. You think you can predict what will happen in the future well, when in fact humans have been proven to be extremely poor at this. You also take your current situation as the standard, when thousands of years of history has shown the opposite.

I've already dealt with the argument about the military's superior power, so go back and read those posts before bringing up that aspect of the debate, as to avoid going in circles.

I seriously doubt anyone ever moved to America so they could own a firearm, and if they did, how is that a good thing? Most Western countries ARE highly predictable in terms of crime being mostly under control, as is, most parts of America. Come to Australia or UK - you don't need a gun (snake antivenom yes, but guns, NO.

So no one has ever moved to America to escape government persecution in their home country?

I speculate that in most democracies in the world would support a constitution where people 'do not have the right to bear arms'. If you live in a totalitarian regime you won;t have any constitutional rights anyway.

Even if that's true, it's utterly irrelevant. Is the majority always right? What if, hypothetically, the majority supported a constitution where slavery was legal? Does that make it the right policy?

What the majority would support is irrelevant as to whether it's the best policy.

Rate of homicides by firearm
Main article: Gun violence in the United States#Homicides

The homicide rate by firearm is significantly higher in the US than in most other advanced countries[93].

In the United States in 2009 there were 3.0 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United Kingdom, with very restrictive firearm laws (handguns are totally prohibited, for example) was 0.07, about 40 times lower, and for Germany 0.2.[93]

The movie Bowling for Columbine reported the number of people killed by firearms per year. Director Michael Moore showed statistics on gun-related deaths per year for a few major countries (ordered here by deaths per 100,000):

United States - 11,127 (3.601/100,000)
Canada – 165 (0.484/100,000)
Germany – 381 (0.466/100,000)
France – 255 (0.389/100,000)
Australia – 65 (0.292/100,000)
United Kingdom – 68 (0.109/100,000)
Japan – 39 (0.030/100,000)

-Wikipedia, Gun politics in the United States

Thoughts?

I disagree with taking money from the military when there are many other bigger issues across the world to deal with.

The parallel argument to drugs isn't a very good one because you can only hurt yourself (a few exceptions of course).

A) Do we need to spend 41% of the world's military budget? Don't you think being able to blow the world up once is enough, let alone 10 or 20 times? We could cut our military budget in half and still have the strongest military in the world. There's a huge difference between cutting defense budget and cutting corporate welfare hand outs to defense contractors who are making shit we don't need.

B) What "bigger issues across the world" that the US military needs to handle are you referring to? Terrorism? Maybe it would help if we addressed the cause (i.e. our militarism, occupation of other countries, killings of innocent civilians, sanctions, and propping up tyrannical governments around the world) instead of the symptoms.

C) The comparison to drugs doesn't have to do with who's effected by them. Rather, they have been used in this thread as an example of how futile prohibition of demanded goods is.

D) An argument can be made that drugs do effect other people - your future self. This is called diachronic personhood in metaphysics/philosphy. Snarble 10 years from now is a distinct person from Snarble right now. And doing drugs harms Snarble 10 years from now, and since it's the role of the State to protect the rights of its citizens, it can be argued that preventing you from doing drugs is a legitimate government policy. I don't agree with this entirely and also disagree with drug prohibition because of how grossly impractical it is (i.e. it doesn't work, anyone can still do drugs) and that it carries huge amounts of secondary unintended consequences that infringe on the rights of current innocent people (leads to gangs, cartels, violence, innocent people being terrorized, etc) and infringes on your rights as a person right now. It's also very arbitrary in that there's no guarantee that Snarble B will even exist, will live under the same government, will not be happy that he did the drugs (for instance, maybe he becomes a speaker on the harms of drugs across the country and helps thousands of people stay sober, maybe he's a better person for having done them and cleaned himself up or w/e else that can happen and is unpredictable).

I agree that if people want guns they can still get them. I think we can both agree it will be at least 'slightly' more difficult than it is now.

Accepting that, we can cut it out of our 'ev equation' the same way we can as in a NL hand that when we have the nut flush we don't take a large consideration how to play our hand against the 2nd nut flush (when our opponents range is much wider).

It is more of an issue of whether civilians (who wouldn't get them if they were illegal) should have the right to bear arms .

Thoughts?

The homicide rate by firearm is significantly higher in the US than in most other advanced countries[93].

In the United States in 2009 there were 3.0 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United Kingdom, with very restrictive firearm laws (handguns are totally prohibited, for example) was 0.07, about 40 times lower, and for Germany 0.2.[93]

QED

So no one has ever moved to America to escape government persecution in their home country?

Ofcourse they have. what I was responding to your below assertion that a large reason that people move to America is so they can bear arms. This is clearly rubbish.
A) A lot of people have moved to America precisely because we do not face a major threat of violence from the government, whereas in their home countries they have faced that threat.A large reason (admittedly not the only reason) for this is because of our right to bear arms.

Yeah, this is always the big argument. Better to have one guy with guns instead of a few people with guns. I've thought about this before, and I'm selling, not buying.
In this particular case, it's actually the opposite of what you say - MUCH more difficult to make matters worse. The reason is because of the stadium seating. Dude comes in and has a captive audience that cannot get out; he had both exits covered and you had to go towards the shooter to get away (but it turned out there's a door at the top I thought I read about... but I've watched movies in that exact auditorium and didn't know this)... so really, not a whole lot of crossfire to be had IMO.
And yeah, body armor up the ying yang - probably better to just sit there and take the ass whooping like a man. Far superior choice. Better to let the guy shoot off a few hundred rounds unencumbered than to actually attempt anything.

Come to think of it, better to just let the hijacker have what they want than to stage a rebellion leading the whole plane to go down.

You are misunderstanding me, but I'll come back to that. 10 people in that theater, randomly distributed, will have fields of fire greater than the one assailant's. And they will likely miss at least on one shot. I don't see how that is really debatable. Furthermore, body armor means that it is likely for return fire to be effective. It is not a fact that leads to the conclusion that it is better to do anything in particular. To suggest that saying a gun might not be effective means I think it's better to let terrorists kill people is just snarky.
The point I was making is that an idiot with a gun in the same room as a psycho with a gun is not an improvement. And I think we can all agree America has no shortage of idiots. Furthermore, that there can be more than one solution, potentially being a more effective solution than the one original.
That is why IMO, gun control should partially come in the form of stringent requirements on training. Hell, I abhor our absurdly terribly lax driver's license rules. I would have no problem running through an extensive several week course before I was allowed to take a gun home. If George Zimmerman had had one, maybe Trayvon would still be alive.

I've thought about the tackling idea. One of the killed was in the military and these are the only types I'd expect to have some sort of conditioned response to try something like that. In a few of the high school shootings, there have been students that have done this. I believe Kip Kinkle was tackled by a football player. Huge difference though in size and scope of the treat. Easy to take down a 120 pound schmuck with a ruger than a guy decked out in tactical gear, shotgun, two pistols, and an assault rifle that's firing off rounds at you as you make the attempt. Far more difficult in this particular case for those reasons plus the layout; not so easy to come up from behind when he has that covered.
Had he used his homemade grenades, non of this would have been an issue; the causalities would have been so severe it wouldn't have been worth talking about.

People don't think of it. People run away. It's in their nature. Only the rare few act. The guy who shot his AK at the White House wasn't tiny. Just one guy was nearby and happened to be one of the few. And he was quickly joined by another guy. That really isn't indicative of anything other than, most people run away. Zebras run away from lions too, even though they outnumber them. But, it is a possible, and probably more effective response than to have 7 or 8 people return fire on this guy. He can only point his gun at one person at a time. 5 people jump him and he's going to the ground unless he's a professional wrestler or football player. That is not to say I judge those who didn't jump him, or that the scenario of his using his home made grenades would not have been even more tragic. But there are other responses than shooting back.
After saying all that, I would definitely rather have a gun if I were in that situation. I might not use it, I might opt for the tackling. Or might only think I'm one of the few and not one of the runners. I don't think I'd leave a member of my family behind, that leaves me to find a solution.

As for the constitution, I'm of the belief that we should either follow it or not. IMO, we'd be better off following it... BUT, we don't, so no need to cherry pick, just scrap it and decide how you want society to be. An unarmed people that poses no threat, fine. That worked out well for Jews in 1930s Germany. Also seems to work fairly well for modern day Chicago.

To the bold; that's what the amendment process is. The 2nd amendment is a change to the Constitution. The 18th was also, as was the 21st (the Prohibition ones). I hardly think I need to respond to the Germany comment but I will anyway. It wasn't gun control that got 6 million jews killed.

I do agree with you in that we can't defend ourselves against the government if needed (obviously an extreme scenario). Since the advent of the tank, I think the people have been completely out equipped. The real insurance is that the military is made up of everyday people and commanding those people to fire upon their kin would pose a moral dilemma. Of course, this is all just theoretical hypothetical stuff... but stuff I do think about from time to time... and I do not own any firearms but have considered buying one for years (doubtful that I'll ever do it though, since owning is far more dangerous than leaving oneself defenseless)

People have been outequipped, something that was not true when the 2nd Amendment was written. And I wasn't denigrating the idea of fighting for the sake of fighting either. Fighting for what one believes can be a noble pursuit regardless of chances for success.
I too have considered buying a gun for a few years now. I fear my ignorance, that's why I haven't bought one. It took me a long time and several performance driving events to consider myself a decent driver. At least those are available. In depth courses on situational skills and appropriate usage of guns don't exist.







AGTJ, you seem to think that a black market for guns would look exactly the same as the current legal market does, which is simply not true. And please stop comparing it to the drug trade, unless you have discovered a way to grow guns.

Right now, the black market in guns is largely derived from the legal market. Guns get bought in states where it's easy, then get shipped illegally to the black markets in states where guns are hard to get. Guns are stolen from registered users. Guns are sold in legitimate ways, then illegitimate transfers of ownership follow. People aren't knocking off thousands of Smith and Wesson shipments daily.
In the hypothetical banning of all guns that no one is talking about, it is true that there will still be a black market. But, it will be smaller. Guns will be harder to get, suppliers fewer, driving up costs. Where will they come from? The aforementioned S&W trucks? No, they'll most likely come from other countries (see: Mexican drug gangs getting guns from the US), making the actual trade more difficult.
You have to be a successful drug dealer to buy some guns. As a successful drug dealer, you are going to be more careful in parceling out your supply. And yes, fewer guns will be in the hands of the law abiding. That makes law enforcement's job easier, not harder. With less supply, the illegal weapons trade can be more effectively targeted. Criminals are easier to identify. Just look at poker again. Back to the underground clubs for many, which are more dangerous places, much harder to find for the player but much easier for the cop to find than who's playing on Stars.

Your argument that a black market would exist is not an effective one. The most effective argument for the ownership of guns is this one: if there are four guys who attack me and my wife walking down the street, and I don't have a gun, she's getting raped to death. I dare anyone to tell me that's it's better that happens than me putting a stop to it with a weapon. Or that I don't have the right to put a stop to it.

Legislate to limit access to guns, and consideration of which type of weapons should be banned. Licensing. Ban automatic access to automatic weapons altogether (can't see any reason why anyone has a legimate right to carry an AK47 - can you?).

Are you saying that if the Federal Government outlawed automatic weapons, or guns of any type, then gun crime will go down?

In the hypothetical banning of all guns that no one is talking about, it is true that there will still be a black market.

No one is talking about it? Hillary and dictator Obama are lobbying to get a UN Small Arms treaty passed this week, this would be the first step to banning all guns if it were to happen. The UN needs to be destroyed ASAP.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/12086-un-arms-transfer-treaty-att-on-small-arms-gun-grab-gradualism

http://www.examiner.com/article/watch-out-for-the-small-print-u-n-arms-trade-treaty

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed thier subject races to carry arms have prepared thier own downfall by so doing" -Adolph Hitler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnuDzozkjC0&lr=1&uid=MR9qdQd3xE-YsM-tbIemlw

If anyone watches that video and wants to skip the song that plays it starts at 3:10 and ends at 8:15.

lol

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht