As a collective board, how do we fix the problems created because of improper/unessecary gun control? How do we attempt to prevent such violent crimes and shootings?
In the end, if a criminal wants to get a gun, they are going to get it, somehow, someway.
Try to stay civilaized and keep the shitposting to a minimum, I'm actually interested in what /k/ thinks we should/could do.
I think the "mainstreaming" that came about in the late 60's has us all walking around in an open-air psyche ward these days. The evaporation of the middle class dumped tens of millions into abject poverty like they had never experienced. And the complete and utter failure of the war on drugs happened right about then too. So what do we do to get straightened out?
1) Train kids from Jr. High on for a career in "the trades".
2) A little less free trade. What has free trade done for us other than lower the price of fake vomit and rubber dogshit?
3) Low cost mental health care. Dollar for dollar probably the biggest impact.
4) Redistribute the wealth. Hey, let them go overseas. They can live in Germany, or even Somalia, where I understand the tax rate is quite low.
Oh, right- this was about gun control.....
>Well yeah, but is there a country that even has the ideal conditions for no crime or minimul? If there is, why are we not following it?
Lets say you are throwing a party and the alcohol runs out, all the women leave, and dubstep starts playing over the stereo.
Do you think it would be better to fix the shitty party situation or physically tie people down so they can't leave or complain?
Some town in Georgia (? some southern state) did that and the crime rate plummeted.
Conditions usually require a homogeneous population and more importantly, culture. Sweden had a stupid low crime rate until they started importing another culture (muslims). That is also the reason why Iceland has such a retarded low crime rate.
However the US is "multicultural" so people will act according to their "culture" and that will often result in what we consider to be a crime because our culture is different.
Then throw issues like what this anon >>28452191 pointed out and you got a recipe for a class of people who commit a disproportionate amount of crime and underachievement, which then helps to keep them poor and therefore more likely to commit a crime.
Do you mean literally redistributing the wealth or simply cutting taxes so people will have more money in their pockets and it is easier for business to start up and compete against existing business?
Overall, TL;DR, it's a cultural problem that we cannot solve with laws.
This ties really well into>>28452022
This helps close the gap of monitary difference, which undoubtly is one of the main causes of robberies etc. But this is more like a global problem because no one has solved this.
>I didnt ask to feel these feels.
You two anons are seriously hitting it right on the mark and I feel exactly like you two do, it is a cultural problem and we cant fix shit until we fix that. Adding all these new rules and regualtions is just making he situation worsen and targetting the wrong people I feel.
Out of curiosity how old are you guys?
23, blame my libertarian values on being raised poor and military service. When you don't have a lot of things you tend to care more about the abstract, such as honor, freedom, etc.
im gonna be straight up with you guys, how much gun control is required is dependent on teh locationa nd poopulation. in wyoming which is 60% mountains and 39% wilderness, no control is needed
when you start to talk about cities with million plus population its a different affair, now when i say control i done mean registries or significant regulation of whats owned, i mean people having to do a pretty simple safety and operation course and limits on what you're actually allowed to carry around with you and carry near shit like schools and inner cities (i.e.if its near one of these places it has to be concealed properly and cant be a rifle, you get the just) signposts would be needed but that way we can preserve ownership but reduce school shootings. lets be honest here, gun murder rates wouldnt really matter because its the mass shootings that people use to try and push legislation and without them murder rates wouldnt mean shit.
Kennesaw is what you're tinking of, but they never had a crime issue to begin with.
No, what I mean is the top 5% of the economy can do more to help get the bottom 10% out of trouble. Real job training- like word, excel, etc. Life coaching, like their parent's failed (failed isn't even the right work- imploded I suppose) generations failed to provide. Ever seen Scared Straight? How about a non-criminal scared striaght? Bring in the 45 year old divreced dad of two who became an alcoholic, got a dui, whose wife forced him into buying a house he couldn't afford, who then lost the house, and he could tell all the drop-jawed 15 year olds in the room what living out of his F-body in the parking lot of a 24-Hour Nautilus was like for the year he saved up first, last, and deposit so all four could have a roof over thier head. Bring those little mouth breathers out to the school's parking lot and let them hoove in the musky essence of that peeling 86 Camaro's interior. let them reach under the seat in those snow drifts of boogers and sesame seeds to find his stack of unopened collection notices....
jesus, I gave myself chills right there.
These lessons would have a much more significant impact on those kiddies work ethic and dilligence than any fucking DARE presentation. Show them the real effects of where this country is taking them.
This is going to sounds super edgy and newfagy.
We need to have a war that either threatens the safety of american citizens or re-establishes the ideas of violence on a citizen by citizen basis.
No i do not want a war on american soil now a war at all, all im saying is that for the american people as a whole to feel guns are necessary for anything other than mass shootings, they need to have a reason other than jamal nigger spook, for owning a gun.
WW1-2 showed america that we were not "untouchable" and proved that we needed to defend ourselves, thus people armed themselves. We are now in a war that on a personal basis ahs nothing to do with the american people. the "terror" aspect of it is something blown out of proportions by stupid ass media and "journalists".
Liberals want no guns because they ultimately dont trust the population with their own safety. Conservatives want less gun control because they dont trust minorities.
TL;DR- fuck liberals
Well what do you do about the people buying non regulated firearma there and taking them other places to be sold?
I sorta agree with you, and I dont know how other states do it, but I'm from CA and you cannot buy a gun without a firearms saftey course card/hunting license. I think that was an amazing requirement.
21, Hardworking lower middle class, with a fair bit of outdoor experiance.
Several, and America meets every condition to become like them, except one.
Approximately a fifth of our population has a very deep, very permanent tan. That group, despite being about 20% of the population, commits the majority of total crime and the overwhelming majority of crimes involving firearms.
The difference between us and certain northern European countries is they do not have a significant population of people with a permanent tan.
>murder rate doesn't matter, it's the mass shootings
The didn't have much crime but after everyone had to have a gun in the house, the crime rate dropped. And I don't mean it kept trending downwards like in most of the US, it dropped significantly.
Honestly the best way for the 5% to help the bottom 10% is to create more jobs. Which would best be done by cutting taxes. We should also limit welfare. This will mean more jobs and more people working full time rather than working a few hours and then living off welfare. We should also remove no fault divorce as it has been shown multiple times that kids need both parents. No fault divorce allows women to just leave a man and now the kid is more likely to become a criminal and both parents are more likely to live in poverty, which increases their chances of committing crimes. Frankly the fucks should be forced to work out their problems with divorce being the last option rather than the first.
Ok we're getting a little too /pol/ here lets step it back a little.
I agree with a new threat is needed, I really blame the newer generations (my own generation) most of them have never had anything to worry about and are the product of parents who dont know what the fuck theyre doing because they had them at 20.
But lets get back to the issue at hand.
If we had to pass new laws or regualtions to fix whats wrong with the current gun control what do we do?
>fix the problems created because of improper/unessecary[sic] gun control
Abolish the NFA and GCA.
>attempt to prevent such violent crimes and shootings?
Promote armed citizenry.
>Try to stay civilaized
Learn to spell first; then come back in a few years after you've had your 18th birthday.
>I just don't think citizens need certain types of firearms
Which types? Come on, spit it out; which types? Keeping in mind that more people die each year in fistfights than to rifle fire. So: which types?
>unironically advocating for socialism
Kill yourselves immediately.
>murder rate doesn't matter, it's the mass shootings
Horseshit. You're playing the anti-guns' game. The mass shootings don't matter a single dime; the problem is with the people who puff them up and use them as a means to infringe on rights.
On mobil so sorry Mr.man. and the types which are fully automatic, not even law enforcement should own them.
If you dont think poverty is the main problem, you are part of the problem.
There are so many calod arguments against open border policies, however it seems that all we get are people who want to shout racist slurs and make comically misinformed remarks. While I disagree that allowing people from other cultures and nations into your borders is harmful, I do believe that encouraging a healthy degree of assimilation is always necessary. The state (especially a democratic state) has a stake in ensuring that there are at the very least citizens loyal to the nation, their fellow citizens, and that they also identity as citizens.
I'd also like to point out that the main problem with Mexican immigration is that it shows no sign of slowing and several years down the line when blue collar labor becomes increasingly replaced what will we do with these people.
Not him but I kind of agree. In my perfect world there would be a week off in the summer, say the week leading up to the 4th of July. During this week every citizen has the right to go to a range and receive training paid by the gov't (which is constitutional as the gov't has the power to fund the militia, which is every citizen in the US). You are then issued a card that state your name and DOB. This card empowers you to purchase ANY weapon and carry it ANYWHERE. At minimum I would like law enforcement to be restricted to the same weapons available to other citizens within the state.
It's a cultural problem, /pol/ influence is unavoidable.
I believe you mean that they haven't assimilated into the local culture. Which spreading them out would help with that.
>mass shootings don't matter it's the people using them
That's kinda what I was getting at. The murder rate doesn't matter because it's not some big shocking thing. Mass shootings do matter because it's big and shocking and the anti crowd uses it to push for more legislation.
your right i got on a rant.
i dont thing gun regulation will help crime rate. for example chicago. Multiculturalism creates tension, that tension creates problems. Our generation of boys are failing to become men. thus fail to solve their problems with actions instead of words.
In short, less gun control and a general education of fire arms for all citizens will always be better than taking away the only true protection citizens can have.
>Horseshit. You're playing the anti-guns' game. The mass shootings don't matter a single dime; the problem is with the people who puff them up and use them as a means to infringe on rights.
that literally exactly whaty i said, people use the mass shootings to promote their agenda, if they stop then even if gun crime rate is high they're gonna have a much harder time pushing that agenda
They have slideout safes for under your bed. Which quickly allow acces.
And I know what you mean because all of our guns we're in the safe in our garage at one time but now my AR is always in my room loaded along with a 357 and 9mm in the next room over.
Then you have even less of an excuse. What the fuck are you doing browsing 4chan in public? Get the fuck off /k/ and pay attention to what the fuck is around you until you get home.
Explain why their possession should be illegal, and then explain why your reasoning could not then be turned on semi-automatic weapons with just as much efficacy.
>poverty is the main problem
Nigger culture is the main problem. It is true that nigger culture feeds and is fed by poverty; however poverty alone is not the cause.
>it should be in a safe
>where you can get to it
Come back when you're able to avoid contradicting yourself in the same sentence.
>I am litterally autistic and nobody can be on their phones except while in public.
Explain why you should be able to own one, and also a semi automatic firearm cannot do what a fully automatic can.
You really need to look into safes and shit. At this point I'm too interested in this other shit to admit youre a troll or just completly retarded.
>Explain why you should be able to own one
Ah, I see. You've got brain problems.
This direction of reasoning is directly ass-backwards. The burden lies squarely on you to explain why ownership of an automatic weapon should be prosecuted by the state.
>if guns were legalized everywhere, everyone would just start killing eachother!
I never understood this logic.
Why shouldn't we be able to own fully automatic weapons.
>More suppresing power
>Givin a situation you could inflict more casualties in a single room
>Have no use for them in the hunting world
Now, lets say a war or something broke out inside the US, then I would say the government should be resonsible for the dispersal of full auto weapons to its citize ns.
And what if it were a war of the citizens against the government? Or the states against the fed?
That would most probably be a just war. And you know damned well that even if they were legally compelled to, they would absolutely not distribute any form of weapon to their opponents
>Implying it a troll thread.
>Litterally is inviting /k/ to express their feelings
>/pol/ shit is at bare minimum.
This is a firearms board, this is a thread about firearms, no one has had a problem but you.
>have no use for them in the hunting world
This is also true for the vast majority of all handguns, and yet nobody gives a shit about them.
Even though 99.99999% of gun crime is committed with a handgun that is both illegal in many places to hunt with and unethical everywhere to hunt with, nobody really gives a shit about handguns.
Because theyre not scary.
Less legislation more people actually getting off their ass and focusing on what makes people go murder happy. But that takes too much work and people would rather have the illusion of helping by voting on something instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting dirty.
literally who? The government would have Europe's support and the revolutionaries wouldn't want communist or Russian help.
You cant honestly believe that has any relevance whatsoever to the statement "the government should be responsible for distributing automatic weapons in case of war within the US", right?
Ive never heard of handguns being used for hunting ither than 357+ and on anything other than hogs.
You take an uneducated shooter hunting with a rifle and they shoot an animal anywhere they can and you do the same wih a handgun shooter what is the difference?
If were talking revolutionary then youre right, but how many troops do you think would try and ride off with miltary weapons vehicles etc? I meant, which I should have indicated, a war with another country.
>implying every single last piece of proposed and passed gun control legislation in the last 30 years isnt outright stated to target semiauto rifles
>implying the extremely low number of FA pistols is in any way relevant
And I understood that.
And I pointed out that while they might do so during a war with another nation, they would not with a domestic conflict.
Yet we have a constitutionally enumerated right to armed revolt if the cause is just. Therefor we should have unrestricted access to any equipment necessary to do so, with or without active participation from the government.
>more suppressing power
This is not a valid reason.
>more casualties in a single room
This is false.
>no use for them in the hunting world
This is not a valid reason.
The Second Amendment speaks not to hunting or target shooting but to the ability of the people effectively to mount a defense, militarily if need be, of a free state.
Quoting United Stats v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, where the short-barrelled shotgun provision of the NFA was upheld as constitutional:
>The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
That is, that in 1939 a short-barrelled shotgun was not an effective weapon for use in out-and-out combat.
You cannot possibly say the same for an automatic weapon today. A select-fire rifle in an intermediate cartridge is the primary service arm of most every military in the world and is--or should be--at present the very definition of a militia arm.
Efficacy is not an argument against but rather for the ownership of a weapon. Even when framed in the context of criminal activity, it is not an effective argument, as the difference between an automatic rifle and a semi-automatic rifle of the same profile matters little in all but the rarest of firearm-related crime: certainly not enough to justify limitations on the majority of use and ownership which is lawful.
>microstamping applied to all weapons, rigle pistol and shotgun, and was included in a proposal that also banned rifle features and was named an assault rifle ban
>if you legalize FA, you legalize FA everything including handguns.
I get what you're saying, but do you really want Bobby 18 yr old highschool dropout who literally gets all his info from cod to own a mortar system?
Yeah, you're an idiot.
Keep some things get rid of most. Background checks for all purchases, but lower the bar to do them and keep them running all day, every day. FFLs for everyone who applies and completes checks, must be renewed annually for a cost of $20, no requirement of business usage, and keep the DB of private citizen FFLs private. Bring back the shame board of the shops selling the most guns to felons.
>What is micro stamping?
Misconceptions and lies intended as de facto prohibition which they know they cannot get away with de jure.
>do you want to own a nuke?!
If Bobby the 18-year-old high school dropout can afford a mortar system, then he knows enough not to fuck around with it.
Yes. Yes I do.
It will end in one of two ways this generation, with only one possible outcome in the long term (3+ generations): either Bobby the Codkiddie fucks up and accidentally something directly or indirectly causing his death (either he kills himself or relatives of his stray HE find him), or he learns and becomes a competent and responsible mortarman. THEN, a handful of generations down the line after natural selection has ended the bloodlines of the untrainable and there is a large pool of experienced mortarmen, you dont have any more Bobby the Codkiddies forming. They learn the correct way from childhood.
How much do you think a grenade launcher and its ammunition cost?
How likely is someone who can afford one to fuck around with it?
I think I can see your thought process. It is that of the liberal, who thinks to himself: "I couldn't trust myself with a gun! Every time I pick one up it would automatically point at someone's head!"
The world is a dangerous place buddy. You want freedom or security? You want to live in bubble wrap for the rest of your life go ahead.
The launcher itself is not that expensive. An actual, stamped DD m203 is like $12k.
A non DD launcher like the 37/38mms are under $500, and yes there are HE loads for them.
The (destructive device) rounds get pretty fucking expensive pretty fucking fast.
It is entirely possible to legally buy an m203 and a dozen HEDP grenades for less than what a new Camry costs. And there are tens of thousands of idiots that buy new cars.
Something I rarely see suggested but might be worth considering is greatly increasing the penalties for gun crime. I know that being in possession of a firearm while in commission of a crime already increases the severity of the sentence you will receive if convicted, but, for example, if we went along the same route as Singapore does with drugs, it might serve as a better deterrent.
*Mandatory minimum death sentence for being in possession of a firearm while in commission of a crime
*Mandatory minimum death sentence for straw purchasing a firearm which was then used in commission of a crime by its next owner
*Hefty fines and long jail sentences for anyone whose firearm is stolen and does not report the theft within a certain period of time
If these seem draconian, that's the point--straw purchases and thefts make up the majority of guns used in crimes, and criminalizing serious offenses only really works if the punishments are severe enough to make people fear and respect them.
>*Mandatory minimum death sentence for being in possession of a firearm while in commission of a crime
>legally conceal carry while driving
>accidentally drift a few MPH over the speed limit
>get pulled over
>it's the electric chair for you, scumbag!
The available punishments for gun crimes are already pretty stout.
The problem is, legally mandated sentencing guidelines are rarely followed. For example, fucking up with NFA stuff is supposed to have a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years per offense. Theyre getting small fractions of that, frequently no jail time at all.
Then on top of that, those that are sentenced frequently have their sentences commuted to parole after serving less than half of it.
If they enforced the laws already on the books as hard as they could a lot of the problems would go away. But somehow thats "inhumane".
Now if only the whole deterrence thing actually worked.
>complaining unjust laws are laxely enforced.
Nigga nfa is a non issue that shouldn't even be a crime
>eh essay watch me turn this rifle into a far less accurate version that keyholes every shot
Repeal all of it.
The people who advocate for it should be jailed or executed for treason.
It's all just fear of guns themselves, when it's people that are to be feared.
Make friends with someone who is ill-informed about guns. Take them to a range. Educate your friend scout guns. Show them how it is simply an object, a tool. Nothing to be afraid of.
Criminals are Bad People, so we're allowed to beat them and imprison them and kill them and feel good about the whole thing. Really good.
>Crime is already going down
But then who will I be allowed to hate and watch with glee as the police beat them bloody? We're gonna need some new laws here.
It's like saying sword ownership from the pre-1600's by everyone in the world would lead to mass stabbings. Sure, people still got mugged and robbed... But the only ones who were afraid of the swords owned by the citizenry were those in power, and even then not by much. An armed populace has historically been the only thing preventing/ending tyranny or governmental imposition.
No- we tried this already in the 80's.
It was called Trickle Down Economics.
It doesn't work.
The rich spend *that* money to protect/shelter the rest of their money- not on jobs for you and I. So now we know that giving the rich the freedom to create jobs didn't work, so now we need to legislate those jobs into existence.
Example. Lots of hospitals closed due to the poor not having health care, and using the emergency room to solve their basic health care needs. SO- we re-open or build new hospitals. We provide subsidized, low cost health care- with an emphasis on mental health and prevention (see how Kaiser has done well on this, by the way). So now we have good paying jobs providing infrastructure that benefits our people, and not wasting it blowing up brown folks over there. Is this a little isolationist? Maybe yes. Tell me how better off we are after the war on terror. Trillions spent. Billions went missing via Haliburton/KBR. Are you doing better? Do you feel more secure now?
We need to spend less on bribing countries to be our friends.
We need to spend less on the military.
We need to fix the economy now, while we still can. We saw what a bank failure looked like. can you imagine it on a grand scale? The entire country looking like Detroit? All my guns won't do me a damn bit of good when the landlords serves me with an eviction notice and they board up the Tapwater Arms Apartments.
Would you rather be a soldier, a prison guard or a nurse? I'll vote nurse, myself.
Yeah I know, just happened to be the only case I was 100% sure on the sentencing of.
Most violent crimes, gun or no, are punished with a scant fraction of the max and frequently well below the min.
>Now if only the whole deterrence thing actually worked.
It does when you are willing to go all the way. The problem is when, like with the War on Drugs, you criminalize an action and do not make the punishments severe enough.
Compare the War on Drugs with the Chinese Communists' suppression of drug use and sales. They inherited a country where 10%+ of the population was addicted to opium and, with a few short years, eliminated the problem almost completely by not pulling their punches in dealing with it.
They literally did house-to-house searches to sniff out people in possession of drugs; minor offenders were given the chance to clean up their act while major offenders, recidivist junkies, and sellers were put to death along with anyone else who abetted the crime or knew of it and did not inform on the criminal.
It's harsh, but, for better or for worse, it produced better results than any of ours.
read up on drug policy. Know why it exists?
So the cops can fuck with the blacks and mexicans.
That's right- so the cops could have something to charge a Bracero with back in the 30's- thanls to Charles Foster Cain- er...William Randolph Hearst, actually. He wanted the mexican farmworkers out, and used their use of weed to go after them.
The drug war was a failure from top to bottom. The crazy over-reaction in 1969 of the Nixon administration made drugs into the child of the counterculture.
Let's just rewind history a bit. Can you imagine how much better a country we'd have now if we didn't get involved in Vietnam, and didn't go nuts with the war on drugs? How much mental energy did we- as a nation- waste on those two issues alone?
Well, but look at Oregon and Washington and New York and Connecticut. Then skim the comments section in any mainstream media story with the word 'gun' in it. They're succeeding. They've turned anyone who takes their universal Constitutionally guaranteed liberties seriously into a horribly dangerous special interest group.
Shit, look at the number of /k/ommandoes that are voting for Hillary. It's depressing.
You're decades too late to save NFA guns. What other country in the world will side with you on that? You were born too late.
And no, don't do that, as all anyone has to say is you lost your shit, or were so drunk they "had" to take you to the emergency room, so kiss all your funs goodbye. Leave yourself ome wiggle room on this. Adult life is a stone bitch.
Canada has no SBS / SBR bullshit. Europe encourages suppressor usage.
And if you seriously think that being too drunk will end you up on the "list" I don't know what to tell you besides that they sure as hell don't strip your DL for that shit
>Hey, /k/, what do we need to maximize our freedoms?
>A police state, democide, genocide, removal of civil and human rights, and maybe a little slavery!
I hate you guys, I really do.
Repeat after me: Guns are an empirical non-problem.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 and successive legislation exists solely because of corrupt and incompetent local law enforcement, undermanned state law enforcement, and nonexistent federal law enforcement.
They couldn't (or wouldn't) catch gangsters using investigative methods not significantly developed since the time of Arthur Conan Doyle so congress criminalized their guns.
The very existence of any few of the hundred+ federal law enforcement agencies would have prevented this from being so much as a notion in the mind of a congressman.
This is your daily reminder that there is -zero- correlation between lawful gun ownership and crime of any sort.
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
A couple proposals:
1. Bring back penal colonies.
If you commit a serious violent crime, you're gone. You get shipped off to some random canadian island(s) to live with the other psychopathic animals.
Your family/friends can send you care packages, but no government assistance will be given. You will have to band together with the rest of the criminals to survive. Your continued existence will be based on private charity and teamwork.
If you commit a lesser crime, you go to prison for a short while. After a few offenses, though, you're gone too.
2. Require that anyone on welfare for more than 6 months submit to sterilization to continue receiving benefits.
And they also dont strip DLs from people committed to institutions for severe and untreatable mental health problems like paranoid schizophrenia, alzheimers/dementia, and severe manic depression.
Yet they are for damned sure prohibited from owning guns.
Wipe all existing laws off the books.
Define a gun as the barrel and bolt, like every other country, so we can import/export like non-fags
All transfers occur through one of the following paths:
1) NICS check, if NICS passes a control # is given for reference, seller and buyer keep copies of bill of sale, nothing is filed. If buyer ends up being a fuckwit, seller holds no liability.
2) If buyer has CHL, bill of sale as before but no NICS call, just keep photo copy of CHL. Again no seller liability.
3) No check, nothing transfer. Seller accepts liability of negligent arms transfer if buyer is fuckwit.
This avoids any kind of registry, limits liability, but ensures that aunt jemima straw purchasing a weapon for jailbird Tyrone is held accountable.
Would actually prevent crime.
Also, NICS would be open to anyone and have nothing to do with type of weapon transferred. Additionally there would be no such thing as a Title 1 & Title 2 firearm. MG is the same as a semi-auto. Only thing that would likely require additional handling is DD explosives still requiring a FEL.