Foreigners thoughts on gun control

[v-600]

I try and stay out of these kinds of threads, because it tends to get politicised very quickly, the threads end up becoming name calling, and nobody really seems inclined to discuss anything or want to change their mind on the subject.

However having recently seen this apostasy thing in Sudan I did sign the online petition (for whatever little practical effect it actually had). If you do think something is wrong and needs changed, your nationality or personal involvement shouldn't stop you voicing your opinion.

To that end I wanted to ask this poll.

EDIT: For clarity the reason for posting this above is completely serious. I think its a problem the US has and that other people should try and help out with where possible, in this case by discussion.

Yes, the poll results seem kinda stupid....intentionally. It kind of highlights how the rest of the world sees it and why we're puzzled you're all actually having this discussion.

 

[Northern Lawn]

Honestly I don't think guns would save you from anything because I doubt any of you would fight back. I never hear of people having gun fights with the police and remember the LA riots? 55 people were killed but none of those blacks were shooting at the police. They just trashed their own neighbourhood.

Even right in Florida, there is a muslim family that owns a chain of stores. There son is the first american born and raised terrorist bomber. He was radicalized in Florida, the family is very prominent there. Wearing there muslim costumes etc. They are surrounded by americans with guns but they don't give a damn. You won't do anything, it's apathy.

Despite that, you yankees are not nearly as apathetic as Canadians.

 

[boomerang]

Your poll could stand some tweaking.

 

[v-600]

Your poll could stand some tweaking.

True, but it seems to me that those most opposed to any legislation at all have the stereotype and reputation of most disbelieving the two statements in the poll. They are there to highlight that fact.

Now you mention it I should have added an option stating something like

"I agree we should amend the constitution to make it more relevant to modern times, allowing for the fact that no foreign government is likely to invade and steal our stuff" to give the extreme pro gun legislation folks a choice too.

I can't see a way to edit the poll though

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

True, but it seems to me that those most opposed to any legislation at all have the stereotype and reputation of most disbelieving the two statements in the poll. They are there to highlight that fact.

Now you mention it I should have added an option stating something like

"I agree we should amend the constitution to make it more relevant to modern times, allowing for the fact that no foreign government is likely to invade and steal our stuff" to give the extreme pro gun legislation folks a choice too.

I can't see a way to edit the poll though

Then it's not really a poll of other people's opinion. Instead it's a reflection of what you are saying people need to believe or think. It's about you

A more direct example.

Poll:

I am-

A) Magnificent
B) Wondrous

If one participates then it can only validate just how great I am no matter if I suck or not. Saying that it represents anything else doesn't matter. It is what it is.

 

[v-600]

Then it's not really a poll of other people's opinion. Instead it's a reflection of what you are saying people need to believe or think. It's about you

A more direct example.

Poll:

I am-

A) Magnificent
B) Wondrous

If one participates then it can only validate just how great I am no matter if I suck or not. Saying that it represents anything else doesn't matter. It is what it is.

True, I edited the original post to reflect this. I thought by the nature of the two options it was quite clear, but might have misjudged that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

True, I edited the original post to reflect this. I thought by the nature of the two options it was quite clear, but might have misjudged that.

Fair enough but what I've seen is that there are assumptions made on opposite sides of the issue which are relevant but ignored and that likely make any poll somewhat invalid. That's not the same as useless because it can be a starting point for further analysis and discussion.

I'm rather busy today so I'll be in and out of this thread, but I agree it would be nice to have a discussion.

With that in mind I agree that it is possible to have laws which are reasonable by Constitutional standards. Of course there are those who argue for no restrictions however those are few. My problem and those of many others is a lack of trust based on demonstrated bad faith by politicians. For example our governor in NY who I despairingly call "Emperor Cuomo" circumvented normal legislative procedures for the express purpose of establishing the SAFE act, his personal vision, which is completely arbitrary, without legislative or public input. Indeed, he had no interest in what others thought of this. By, of, and for himself. He violated "reasonableness" by his intentional disregard of proper procedure by political bullying and skulduggery. That's why many of us have no faith.

I do take exception of your perhaps unintentional linkage between state approved executions for religious violations and the overwhelmingly peaceful intent of the vast majority of gun owners. If you don't see the difference then you won't get far with us.

 

[v-600]

I'm rather busy today so I'll be in and out of this thread, but I agree it would be nice to have a discussion.

I'm on GMT+5ish, I'll be interested to see what people have put by the morning.

With that in mind I agree that it is possible to have laws which are reasonable by Constitutional standards. Of course there are those who argue for no restrictions however those are few. My problem and those of many others is a lack of trust based on demonstrated bad faith by politicians. For example our governor in NY who I despairingly call "Emperor Cuomo" circumvented normal legislative procedures for the express purpose of establishing the SAFE act, his personal vision, which is completely arbitrary, without legislative or public input. Indeed, he had no interest in what others thought of this. By, of, and for himself. He violated "reasonableness" by his intentional disregard of proper procedure by political bullying and skulduggery. That's why many of us have no faith.

Without too much thought, my gut reaction is...has a prevalence of guns prevented politicians acting shamefully? I see the argument that you don't trust politicians to make fair well thought out legislation, when they could make a knee jerk reaction (and probably will) for their own ends.

Sadly the same thing happens in most countries round the world with some politicians and it taints the names of those (few) who do have better intentions. The recent MEP vote at home, both the turn out of about 30% and the rise of more extreme parties as a protest vote against the centre majority parties is a good case in point.

Would you make the argument that because something bad could happen (over zealous self interested law making), you shouldn't try and do something good (reasonable effective gun legislation)?

I do take exception of your perhaps unintentional linkage between state approved executions for religious violations and the overwhelmingly peaceful intent of the vast majority of gun owners. If you don't see the difference then you won't get far with us.

If you saw that link it was entirely unintentional. I didn't mean to link religious persecution and gun rights. I am not American or Sudanese, and am not likely in the near future to visit either country. The internal affairs of both countries doesn't directly affect me either way. The point I meant to get across was that if you see something that you feel is wrong, and have the chance to voice a reasonable opinion and discourse on the subject, you should.

 

[jpeyton]

What's considered "effective" gun control legislation by international standards is a complete non-starter by United States standards.

And what's considered effective by United States standards (gun control in California) isn't 100% effective either (Isla Vista shootings).

But even though we can't stop everything, gun crime is down by large numbers over the past two decades: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Unfortunately, most people (nationally and internationally) are uninformed about this, and think our gun crime is actually the same or going up. That's why there's a widespread misconception that the United States has an epidemic on their hands. An epidemic doesn't kill 11,000 people in a nation of 320 million. My definition of an epidemic would be more like the stratospheric rates of malnourished children under 5 in Nepal.

 

[Matt1970]

Those are the only 2 options?

 

[jpeyton]

Those are the only 2 options?

This poll is for foreigners only.

 

[WelshBloke]

This poll is for foreigners only.

They don't make a lot more sense for foreigners either TBH.

 

[Harabec]

I don't get your poll. It seems to offer only 1 choice...

BTW, for those wondering what it would be like - It is illegal for most people to own guns in Israel. Crime families are the only ones with guns and are terrorizing normal folk. The police is a bad joke.

 

[bradly1101]

I try and stay out of these kinds of threads, because it tends to get politicised very quickly, the threads end up becoming name calling, and nobody really seems inclined to discuss anything or want to change their mind on the subject.

However having recently seen this apostasy thing in Sudan I did sign the online petition (for whatever little practical effect it actually had). If you do think something is wrong and needs changed, your nationality or personal involvement shouldn't stop you voicing your opinion.

To that end I wanted to ask this poll.

EDIT: For clarity the reason for posting this above is completely serious. I think its a problem the US has and that other people should try and help out with where possible, in this case by discussion.

Yes, the poll results seem kinda stupid....intentionally. It kind of highlights how the rest of the world sees it and why we're puzzled you're all actually having this discussion.

I often attempt to see many challenging subjects/policies through the eyes of foreigners, and on this one I think I'd just be as baffled as I am on the inside. I get people's attraction to guns, but I have yet to understand why people think it's a good idea except to allay their fears.

 

[v-600]

Those are the only 2 options?

This poll is for foreigners only.

The two options are there hopefully to get people to think about and question the implications behind them i.e. Do I actually really believe that only anarchy/dictatorship follows gun legislation.

Of course in real life there are more than 2 options and this poll was never intended to collect a large quantity of reliable statistics.

As I mentioned, the most vocal views (which tend to be the most extreme) come across suggesting that if any legislation is passed attempting to control gun use, then the only outcome from that would be the rise of a dictatorial government, and lawlessness on the streets.

I'm sure most people don't believe that.

e.g. most people probably don't think that someone will come in the night to steal their guns.

I don't want this to descend into the normal gun thread "guns are bad/guns are my right/liberal/republican/oh think of the children" kind of thead. This is a little off topic, but I was watching a vid on youtube (i've swapped comps and can't find the link at the mo) saying 'If Obama did come for your guns, what good would even a fully automatic rifle be when he rolls a tank through your front wall? What good is a well armed militia against laser guided bombs and stealth drones?'