Gun Control: apologies, i'm on desktop and didn't notice the corpse

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Gun Control: apologies, i'm on desktop and didn't notice the corpse

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

This thread is for the discussion of laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians; both in the United States and around the world.

Some useful terms when classifying how different countries handle gun control include the following:

shall-issue: granting of a required license or permit is subject only to meeting determinate criteria laid out in the law; the granting authority has no discretion in the awarding of the licenses.
may-issue: granting of a required permit or license is partially at the discretion of local authorities. Some jurisdictions may provide administrative and legal avenues for an applicant to appeal a permit denial, while others may not.
no-issue: granting of a required permit or license is not allowed, except in certain very limited circumstances.

The United States is so permissive that we don't fully fall into the most lenient category here -- some of our states are shall-issue, while others allow possession without any permit whatsoever. However, most countries do allow civilians to own firearms, albeit with varying levels of restriction.

Check here for a good summary of the information we have. Scholars considered our state of knowledge on the effects of gun control policies poor in the 2000s, which contributes to political deadlock on the issue[link]. However, in the time since then, studies by the UN[link] and others[link] have shown that gun control laws are associated with fewer firearm-related deaths. There are other studies which compare US states with stricter laws to others, as well as laws that compare suicides or injuries rather than gun deaths in general, and all of them point in the same direction of gun control causing a reduction. If there are studies that contradict this, please post them in the thread.

However, opponents would argue that even if if gun control policies have benefits, they aren't worth giving up the benefits brought by gun ownership in general, or more permissive gun ownership in particular. These would include the ability to rely on oneself rather than police for safety, or guns acting as a check toward oppressive actions by the government toward citizens. Others point instead to potential problems with stricter laws, such as enforcement only targeting certain groups of citizens, or being ineffective in confiscating guns when a culture of ownership is already well-established. The merits of all of these arguments are, of course, still the subject of intense debate.

Koos Group fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Jun 2, 2022

# ¿ Jun 2, 2022 05:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 10:36

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

Jaxyon posted:

3% of Americans own half the guns, averaging 17 a person.

I don't think that directly causes mass shootings, but it's pretty clearly a symptom of a ridiculous culture.

Well, that's probably also true for other collectible items.

# ¿ Jun 2, 2022 18:43

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

ToxicSlurpee posted:

Historically whenever the populace gets disarmed oppression pretty much immediately follows.

It would be educational for you to provide historical examples. The more the better of course.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2022 21:59

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

ToxicSlurpee posted:

When the Nazis took power Hitler disarmed sectors of the population especially the Jews. They also disarmed the countries they conquered. Himmler specifically said "Ordinary citizens don�t need guns, as having guns doesn�t serve the State." Before that the Weimar Republic began gun registry which was then used by those in power against political opponents pretty specifically. We know what happened after that.

Before the Armenian genocide around WW1 the Turks disarmed the Armenians and immediately started taking everything they had and exterminating them.

In the late 19th century the American government confiscated the Lakota's guns "for their own safety." Once they were handed over the cavalry immediately attacked and slaughtered them.

Mao implemented strict gun control in the 60's and the Chinese government has been oppressive ever since.

Rome also had a history of disarming conquered peoples and then taxing them into the dirt.

Before the communist revolution in Russia the people in charge of it loved having an armed population. After the fact they disarmed the common folks and only let party members have a few weapons. We all know what Stalin did after that.

Chinese history is actually full of this which is why martial arts and weird weapons like the kama were invented. The common folks got disarmed, the government became oppressive, and they had to improvise to throw the shackles off.

The Spanish Empire didn't let common people have weapons and instead forced them to rely on their military. This caused all sorts of problems for the common folks one of which was the difficulty they achieved their independence. One of the first steps was getting the people armed enough to resist Spanish rule in the first place. Overall the Spanish Empire was dreadful to its conquered people.

It's pretty simple, really. If one side has weapons and the other one doesn't the side with the weapons can easily oppress the other one.

Ah. Thank you.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2022 22:48

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

This could very well be my fault, but I'm finding it a bit hard to understand what points are being made here.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2022 20:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 10:36

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

Serious posts please, gentlemen.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2022 21:44

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Gun Control: apologies, i'm on desktop and didn't notice the corpse