General Chat / Aurora Shooting

With three shootings in the last month alone you're claiming that this type of event isn't likely to happen at all?

It isn't.. you're more likely to die in a swimming pool than get injured by a firearm. The fact that something sometimes results in death/injury doesn't mean we have to regulate it to death.

^then why regulate drugs at all?
They MIGHT kill you one day, but responsible use is still possible.

Addiction, profiteering, deterioration of bodily functions... I don't know a ton about the drug debate, but the way I see it, people can do whatever they damn well please, even if it gets them killed. The problem comes when they try to get other people killed, which can very easily be the case on hard drugs. Hell, even alcohol, and look how laxly that is regulated. Alcohol-related incidents are arguably the worst in the United States, with one of (if not) the highest minimum drinking age in the world.

This seems to be an endless discussion....

I know this is the discussion area, but this leads nowhere.

It isn't.. you're more likely to die in a swimming pool than get injured by a firearm. The fact that something sometimes results in death/injury doesn't mean we have to regulate it to death.

You're also much more likely to encounter a swimming pool than a gun. Same with cars. Lotta car deaths out there, but how many cars vs. guns do you encounter in a typical day? That fact that something almost ALWAYS results in death/injury (the use of a gun outside of a gun shooting range = injury or death, or at least the threat and high possibility of either) means we HAVE to regulate it to death.

I'll ask this again: is there a reason why obtaining a gun is easier than obtaining a car? Both require training, responsibility, and common sense to use in the intended way, yet guns can be purchased at anyone's whimsy.

"The simple fact is that neither more nor less restrictive policies will do anything about these incidents, long- or short-term. "
Has this been proven? Do you have statistics showing a steady or increased number of gun-related homicide after more restrictive policies have been implemented?

Or how about any numbers showing a reduced number of gun-related homicide afterwards? I think Europe serves as a good example.

Those who want guns can still get it, meaning if you want to protect your family or yourself with a conceal and carry permit, then you have every right to due so. But criminals who want guns will have to put themselves through the government-regulated system of training, purchasing permits, etc., making them more accountable for crimes OR they will have to turn to the black market, in which the prices of guns will rise dramatically due to government regulation.

About alcohol, most deaths in the US attributed to alcohol use is drinking and driving and alcohol poisoning. We have a bad relationship with alcohol in which many college students binge drink and that type of alcohol use is widespread. As for drinking and driving, the US is a heavily car-based nation and therefore we have a lot more accidents related to drinking and driving. I do believe drugs should be regulated because of all the negative effects of free-drug use especially with the drug culture in the US. As for marijuana though... with all of that research showing positive effects on over 200 medical conditions including Alzheimers, epilepsy, chemotherapy sickness, and even morning sickness (this one is quite controversial...), and with no proven long-term damage or serious side effects, I don't think it should be illegal. But that's another discussion altogether

You're also much more likely to encounter a swimming pool than a gun. Same with cars. Lotta car deaths out there, but how many cars vs. guns do you encounter in a typical day? That fact that something almost ALWAYS results in death/injury (the use of a gun outside of a gun shooting range = injury or death, or at least the threat and high possibility of either) means we HAVE to regulate it to death.

I'll ask this again: is there a reason why obtaining a gun is easier than obtaining a car? Both require training, responsibility, and common sense to use in the intended way, yet guns can be purchased at anyone's whimsy.

I give you this one, completely. But do keep in mind that there are about as many guns in the U.S. as there are people, but only owned by about a quarter of the population. Also, coming in contact with a gun, in something like 96% of defensive cases, results in no death or injury, as no shots are fired. You do not carry hoping to shoot, you carry on the very slight unfortunate chance that you might have to deter a crime. This case cannot really be made for "assault rifles" but I really don't even understand those myself.

Has this been proven? Do you have statistics showing a steady or increased number of gun-related homicide after more restrictive policies have been implemented?

Yes. Although not strictly speaking policy-related. Less restriction means psychos still have guns, more restriction means psychos don't forfeit their guns. Same end result. Also, do not just look at the top of the chart. The U.S. might look bad initially, but keep scrolling. Also, keep in mind they are 2007 numbers, and the rates have gone down since then (as gun ownership has risen).

Or how about any numbers showing a reduced number of gun-related homicide afterwards? I think Europe serves as a good example.

Europe never had the gun population of the United States to begin with (well, since like the 19th century anyway). The fact that these are already in circulation under a guaranteed broad right-to-own is a troublesome hurdle. Forcing law-abiding citizens to turn over their guns is a sticky situation for reasons I've already covered.

Those who want guns can still get it, meaning if you want to protect your family or yourself with a conceal and carry permit, then you have every right to due so. But criminals who want guns will have to put themselves through the government-regulated system of training, purchasing permits, etc., making them more accountable for crimes OR they will have to turn to the black market, in which the prices of guns will rise dramatically due to government regulation.

Can't really respond to this because I'm basically the one who suggested it

About alcohol, most deaths in the US attributed to alcohol use is drinking and driving and alcohol poisoning. We have a bad relationship with alcohol in which many college students binge drink and that type of alcohol use is widespread. As for drinking and driving, the US is a heavily car-based nation and therefore we have a lot more accidents related to drinking and driving. I do believe drugs should be regulated because of all the negative effects of free-drug use especially with the drug culture in the US. As for marijuana though... with all of that research showing positive effects on over 200 medical conditions including Alzheimers, epilepsy, chemotherapy sickness, and even morning sickness (this one is quite controversial...), and with no proven long-term damage or serious side effects, I don't think it should be illegal. But that's another discussion altogether

Agreed 100%. Regulate in scale of possible harm to others.

^then why regulate drugs at all?
They MIGHT kill you one day, but responsible use is still possible.

I don't support the regulation of drugs (outside of age restrictions). If you choose to use a substance that affects your life, that's your choice. In my opinion, the government shouldn't have to attempt to protect your own life, you should be responsible for it. Government can try to protect you from others, I agree, but banning guns/restricting guns does the opposite in my opinion.

Apparently China doesn't like your link Ling- my connection gets reset when I click it zzz.

But about the turn-over of guns; this doesn't need to occur. Make it so that if you currently own a gun, you must register it and get a license and training etc. If not, and you are ever caught, then you will pay fines/etc. Just like if you were driving without a license.