The people usually involved on these mass shootings are ing no-life lunatics. Those kind of people don't have the contacts to get illegal guns. Make it harder for those socipaths to get guns and watch these type of actions decrease dramatically.
These are actually the kind of people that would go out of their way to find contacts to do so, and you know if such restrictions are put in place the people who can supply them with illegal weaponry will do so. , the gunman today wasn't even allowed to own any firearms; he was dishonorably discharged from the Air Force and barred from purchasing any yet he still managed to do so.
I mean, why do you think other countries decided to tighten up their gun control regulations? Because nothing was happening on those countries? No, they had these type of situations too, and once they made it harder to get guns these incidents stopped happening as often.
Just read above. Other countries had these issues and a stricter gun regulation proved to be the answer. You are trying to disprove facts.
Those other countries also don't have 350 million people and the world's largest economy on top of a significant poverty issue that lead people into making bad decisions.
You have yet to provide any facts. You look at these countries and just assume what works for them will work for anyone. There are a mul ude of issues that go into preventing these disasters, and simply outlawing these weapons will do little to stop these psychos from getting their hands on weapons to cause harm.
Also, for the record, I don't own a gun nor am I interested in owning one, but the people who think outlawing firearms completely will solve the problem aren't looking at the whole picture.
So what? Just scale the whole damn thing. You get, what?, from 5 to 10 of these incidents per year? If a stricter gun regulation makes that number decrease to 2/5 per year, you don't think it woukd be worth it? That's without even taking into account other deaths that occur for having so many guns at the reach of any dumbass that is walking by.
I, unintentionally, posted that before I was finished.
Nobody is saying mass shootings will stop for good. What I'm saying is that the number will decrease considerably.
These mass shootings have only become a common thing over the past few years, and a lot of it has to do with illegal weapon trafficking on top of social/political/economic pressure mounting. Social media has become a dangerous thing these days. As for stricter control, many states have it yet they still deal with these events. Like I said, pretty much all of these mass shootings involve illegal firearms that aren't available on the open market. These people go through black market channels to acquire these weapons.
Now you are just making up.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...gs-in-america/We don’t know how all the guns were acquired, but of the ones we know, 164 were obtained legally and 39 were obtained illegally.
I'm not saying changes don't have to be made, but that they need to be done at a more fundamental level. Instead of trying to get rid of guns and hope that solves the problem, we have to fix the source of the problems that lead to people turning to such violence: race, the widening gap between lower and upper class (with the vast majority in the former), and ideolgical/religious differences.
Yeah well, first start with the most obvious and easiest way to palliate the problem and then try to fix the deeper problems (which by the way, the gun happy culture you have over there is one, tbh).
Yep.
Seems like common sense, doesn't it?
Using the Washington Post as a reference for anti-gun legislation is like using Fox News to prove Trump is successful as president, there's significant bias involved. Those numbers are misleading since gun laws have changed a lot the past 25+ years. Weapons that used to be legal have since become illegal. When you look at recent mass shootings, the only ones where the assailant used easy-to-acquire weapons were Vtech and the shooting at the Oregon community college. Aurora, Orlando, Vegas, Sandy Hook, etc. were all carried out with weaponry that's been outlawed in the US since the 90s, and, as with today's tragedy and many others, the s bags were barred from owning guns in the first place.
It isn't an easy way to fix the problem; you're talking about taking away one of the fundamental rights this country was founded on. If you remove the right to bear arms from the Bill of Rights, what's to stop other changes from being made, like the removal of freedom of speech or protection of property?
Should stricter psychological tests and better background checks be done before allowing the purchase of a firearm? Of course. Should guns be completely taken away? No.
That has to be one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard, tbh.
Nobody is going to change the rights to freedom of speech and the protection of property because that would be re ed. An adjustment of tgun control regulation isn't re ed. Some old rights/laws hold up over time, others don't.
Your argument was as re ed as saying "you take away my right to have slaves now and what's to stop other changes from being make like start charging for breathing air"
No-one, nowhere, has ever taken away guns completely. That's never going to happen.Should stricter psychological tests and better background checks be done before allowing the purchase of a firearm? Of course. Should guns be completely taken away? No.
It sets a precedence, and that's enough. Many changes to US law have resulted from similar events, and altering the Bill of Rights (and one of the founding rights of this country no less) opens up a can of worms.That has to be one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard, tbh.
Nobody is going to change the rights to freedom of speech and the protection of property because that would be re ed. An adjustment of tgun control regulation isn't re ed. Some old rights/laws hold up over time, others don't.
Your argument was as re ed as saying "you take away my right to have slaves now and what's to stop other changes from being make like start charging for breathing air
No-one, nowhere, has ever taken away guns completely. That's never going to happen.
You speak of how bad that argument is, yet a lot of your early rebuttals have simply been smug arrogance akin to "my country > your country" without thinking about the differences in situation.
This logic is so ing flawed and re ed. Jesus Christ.
"Pedos will always find a way to molest children. Might as well allow them to live next to schools."
"Thieves will always find a way to steal. Might as well remove security cameras and anti-shoplifting alarms."
"Drunk drivers will always find a way to drink and drive. Might as well get rid of field sobriety tests. Just give them a ticket and let them go on their way."
Just because a white terrorist might (chances are extremely high that they won't since they're literally mental loners) find a weapon the illegal way, doesn't mean we shouldn't even attempt to make it harder for him to do it. A nutjob can buy weapons at gun shows without taking a single background testI mean, Trump literally revoked an Obama era law prohibiting mentally ill people from acquiring guns
....
You're caping for the wrong people. The right takes money from the NRA, and in exchange they give up their spines. Not only that.. but they're even trying to remove your health coverage for when the time comes and you get shot. Vegas survivers are struggling to pay their hospital bills. Spin that for me son.
No, my argument is "the rest of the World > your country on this particular thing".
This has been applied in many different countries with more or less equal levels of success, yet you completely dissmiss it for your country just because.
I know the US is a big ass country with many ed up people, and if you apply this that I'm saying you would probably still be the country with the most mass-shootings in the World. But if you don't think the numbers of these incidents would decrease considerably then you are crazy.
At least try it and see what happens. What do you have to lose besides some re ed social construction that made you believe somehow that baring arms was some kind of fundamental right? And no, before you mention it, crime won't go up. In fact, it tends to go down when meassures like these are taken.
If you actually went through and read my posts you'd see I never said to not make it harder. In fact I said that more in-depth background checks and psychological tests should be performed on anyone wanting to buy a gun/get a gun license.This logic is so ing flawed and re ed. Jesus Christ.
"Pedos will always find a way to molest children. Might as well allow them to live next to schools."
"Thieves will always find a way to steal. Might as well remove security cameras and anti-shoplifting alarms."
"Drunk drivers will always find a way to drink and drive. Might as well get rid of field sobriety tests. Just give them a ticket and let them go on their way."
Just because a white terrorist might (chances are extremely high that they won't since they're literally mental loners) find a weapon the illegal way, doesn't mean we shouldn't even attempt to make it harder for him to do it. A nutjob can buy weapons at gun shows without taking a single background test
You're caping for the wrong people. The right takes money from the NRA, and in exchange they give up their spines. Not only that.. but they're even trying to remove your health coverage for when the time comes and you get shot. Vegas survivers are struggling to pay their hospital bills. Spin that for me son.
However, going throught with erasing a founding principle of this country will only lead to complete chaos and more than likely be a breaking point to another civil war. , I live smack in the middle of a state that would secede from the union before giving up their guns and 99.99% of these people would never use their guns on other people without just cause.
I don't cap for anyone, I hate Trump and most republican policy, and healthcare has nothing to do with this argument. I'm aware of that gun show policy and think it's completely re ed. That is something that will definitely change before too long. , you can prolly go ahead and add AR15's to the list of banned firearms already.
It might have a positive effect, it might not. Like I said, the US has a lot of that goes on behind the scenes that you'd normally only see in third world countries. If you could somehow get rid of all guns those who want them would still have them.
Crime wouldn't go down regardless because of the widespread poverty that exists in every single population center. People will still do what they need to do to survive/help their loved ones.
That "re ed social construction" was one of the main reasons this country was founded since government oppression was a real fear of the people back then. Even if it's not as important today, there are a lot of people who think it is. Like I said, if you violate that "re ed social construction" you set a pecedence that could result in other changes.
Make the processes of buying a gun more thorough, but don't outlaw them outright.
Atleast try what? A total firearm confiscation?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote