Guns...
Such a hot topic, especially now with 29 mass shootings and being barely into our third month of the year. After considering many different viewpoints on what actions should be taken in response to all of this mayhem, I find myself a little bit on the fence on whether or not the best course of action is to put in strict bans for any civilian entities. There are definitely some reasons worth considering heavily against the ban, while also, I know of many that support it as well.
At the top of my head is of course the argument, and claim, that the removal of guns will almost, if not entirely, solve the problem. At the core of this argument is that if no one possesses such weapons, then they cannot go on mass shooting sprees. This is the same as the argument that if we got rid of automobiles, there would be no more automobile related fatalities. Fair enough argument and somewhat logically sound. However, this argument falls apart for a few reasons that unfortunately, are just not in our control.
-One of those being that we simply do not posses the power to strip all firearms away. If they called for a nation wide ban and confiscation of guns for destruction or what have you, many would comply without problem. However, many others would hold their weapons close and simply not report it. The registry would, of course, show authorities who is still in possession, but would likely only run into noncooperation in any attempts to forcefully strip those weapons and even potentially risk altercations similar to Waco as many like minded people wishing to stay in possession of their firearms would not be hard to find huddled together. Also, we cannot un-invent guns just as we cannot un-invent the nuke. Thought the nuke possesses far great capacities for destruction and death, no country in possession of them is willing to throw them away. This should say something about the argument that guns should be dealt away with purely because they are too powerful.
-Another reason is the fact that criminals are not exactly known for their upstanding law abiding philosophy and behavior. As such, they would simply hold on to their already illegally obtained firearms and when those out there who do follow the law are disarmed, they become easy targets for any would be master criminal ruling their area with a lead fist. Break-ins, muggings, robberies, and the like would all become far more common as the common criminal in those fields would gain new confidence in knowing their victims will be virtually defenseless against them. Just as security officers are placed outside of many businesses to deter crime and make those think twice, so too does the idea that the next person they try to rob, could be on equal grounds, gives reason to think twice. This deterrent would evaporate the moment the government strips the weapons from people who use them lawfully. While doing this does make it more difficult for people to acquire guns, it by no means guarantees they cannot be obtained and used to great effect on those that are not able to obtain them.
Another argument is the point toward other countries. This argument involves looking at other countries who have banned firearms and appear to be better off for it. The argument seems to claim that if we could just emulate them, then all their success would be ours as well in handling the gun problem. I don't feel this is quite like looking at the perfect simulation of us to experiment on without the possibility of error, as they do. It seems that when one takes into account the differences in our countries, banning guns just doesn't look at all like it would have the same effect. In fact, it looks a lot like it would have drastically negative effects as I mentioned before.
Ironically, these mass shootings actually make gun owners cling harder to their weapons and praise them rather than the opposite. The reason for this is not some sort of psychopathic mentality and some kind of love for bloodshed, but rather because it only strengthens the belief that having the weapons is what is preventing them from being gunned down in a random mass shooting. In fact, often times gun totters will exclaim that if the victims of the mass shooting had weapons themselves, then they would have been adequately prepared to defend themselves in those situations. Interestingly, the solution almost sounds like it must be an all or nothing situation where either everyone has guns, or no one does. The inbetweens where some have them and some do not appear to be the cause, according to these arguments. As such, a ban on the weapons would almost assuredly lead to far more problems than any that are solved as a result.
I don't believe the answer lies in bans. The answer lies somewhere in between banning out right, and strict highly scrutinous regulations that make it extremely difficult for criminals to acquire firearms, while still allowing law abiding people to have the tools needed ...
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
18 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.The AR15 was created to compete with the Russian AK. It was never meant to be in the hands of civilians. AR-15 Inventor's Family: This Was Meant to Be a Military Weapon
[time.com]
Qualia
Level 8
Mar 7, 2018
0
Enough already, can't be repeated often enough:
Real men don't need little kids to die horrifically for their dipshit hobby they participate in 4 times a year.
Qualia
Level 8
Mar 7, 2018
0
I can't believe you blame the hunters for what is / was done by mentally deranged people...who never hunted or used a gun for self-defense. Please, place the blame where it belongs.
@DUCHESSA Red herring. No one said anything about hunting rifles. You don't hunt with ARs & SKSs, military grade weapons, and that's what those are, you can't just shoot them anywhere except the range, and specialty ranges at that, unless you decide you're going to go postal with them and take them in public to get "famous".
@dahermit:
Here is the list of all school shootings in USA; you can add the few last incidents
18th century
Colonial America / 1746
19th century
1840s /1850s /1860s /1870s / 1880s / 1890s
20th century
1900s /1910s /1920s /1930s / 1940s / 1960s / 1970s /1980s /
21st century
2000s / 2010s
DUCHESSA
Level 8
Mar 7, 2018
0
Close the loopholes.
Mandatory psych evals.
Qualification with type of firearms.
I believe in responsible gun ownership but you need to prove yourself knowledgeable and capable to own one.
Limit clips to five rounds. Why do you need a thirty round clip? You are not going to war.
I have owned guns since I was 14 y/o and spent four years in the Army, I am familiar with what a firearm can do and the damage it can cause. I am uncomfortable though with the loopholes that allows a felon or mentally ill person to legally purchase one (no background check). Everyone seems to want to argue the second amendment, but how many know the US supreme court ruled that the police do not have to protect you (constitutional law class). It is up to the individual in our society to obey laws based on their morals and ethics. If the police are not required to protect us then whose responsibility is it?
MacTavish
Level 7
Mar 7, 2018
1
Agreed. Really good point about police not being responsible. It leaves really only one person left to take that responsibility.
So I dropped this and had to leave for work right after. It appears the space where you add the topic content has a limit but doesn't tell you so. So a chunk of what I originally said was cut off. I'll grab what was missing and add it shortly. Hopefully the lack of what was posted didn't cause confusion to my whole message.
aussj4link
Level 5
Mar 7, 2018
0
In 98 mass shootings since 1982, 72 had acquired their weapons legally, slightly more than half were white males, less than half had any known mental health issues. They happened at, 13 schools, 5 were religious in nature, 27 at workplaces and 38 were random locations. 90% had assault weapons and/or handguns and only 1 used a revolver and only 3 had just a shotgun. There were only 2 women and just 1 couple. The only constant here are the weapons, which means the most affective way to curtail mass shootings is by banning and/or regulating the weapons. Before anybody goes batshit crazy, I said the most affective way, not the only way!!.
Somebody said something about school shootings not happening before the last 25 yrs. The first school shooting after 1982 was Jan.17th 1989. It happened at Stockton schoolyard in Cal., 6 fatalites, 29 wounded, by a guy named Patrick Purdy 26, and he used a 9mm and a AK-47.
MikeFlora
Level 7
Mar 6, 2018
0
In Canada, where I live, no one can own an automatic weapon. Handguns are prohibited unless you have a restricted license. which allows you to transport them to a firing range in a locked box, with a trigger lock and with the ammo in a different locked box.
In Canada, you must take a course and pass an exam. Then you must submit your passing certificate to the RCMP. Then your spouse or common law partner and any ex-spouses or ex common law spouses must sign saying they do not belive there is any reaons that you cannot have a gun. ..It taqkes between 45 and 60 days before you even know if you can buy a rifle, I have heartd of it taking 8 months once. It costs roughly $500 dollars to get to that point.
Extended clips that hold more than 10 bullets are also illegal.
Canada has a lot of guns, we just don't usually kill people with them; and they say 97.2% of our gun deaths are drug related.1.5% are accidental.
Teresa
Level 6
Mar 6, 2018
0
I can remember back in my 20-30s, gun violence was rare and police shootings were even rarer (around the Atlanta area). So less guns brings a lot less problems. It want ever be perfect, regardless...but, it can sure be better! I think, for me personally, I feel afraid of a person, that 'loves' his guns...it reminds me of people who love their alcohol and drugs! I don't feel perfectly safe around those people, either! I know that if it comes down to it, they will choose their other 'love' over me! So we aren't just discussing a person with a high powered gun, that goes into a public place and shoots up a bunch of people! I have witnessed people who go 'off'...they are not in their right mind! And, other people can get hurt, even when there isn't a gun...but, a gun is deadly and final (most of the time). I don't wished to die from a gun shot!
Freedompath
Level 9
Mar 6, 2018
2
And statistically, you never will and have a much higher chance of dying from a medical mistake (41.6 times more likely) or a drug overdose (10.6 times more likely) or a car crash (6.6 times more likely). So if you spend a lot of time "feeling afraid" of a person who "loves his guns", you are experiencing an irrational fear. Gun enthusiasts, especially those who are involved with the various gun competitions, Trap, Skeet, Sporting Clays, Service Rifle, High Power Rifle, Action Pistol, etc. are not the ones shooting up schools (disenfranchised youths) nor doing the mass shootings.
@dahermit I am 78...I cannot remember a school shooting before 25 yrs ago. I can't ever remember a person with a gun that shot another kid at school...not in my childhood and there was not any when all 5 of my children went to several different school! One of my oldest son's classmate, who was a doctor and our mayor here, shot and killed himself in his home office, about 3 years ago. He loved guns! Had a collection! I do not trust people 100% who own a gun! And, I must inform you that I am still doing the same thing that I have done for 30 years...traveling all around this country alone without a gun and I never once had an encounter that put me in danger! I am not fearful of my fellowman. And, I have stories in my family of gun violence and if you are interested I have already written about them! People have accidents in all kinds of ways and die. I don't care about stats! I know behaviors and if you started right now, you would not cure all the mentally ill people in this country. And, that still leaves the people that have uncontrollable anger...like my Mayor/Doctor!
Alot of people either forget that the deadliest massacre in a school in US history was the Bath School massacre back in 1927 or are uneducated of, 44 people died (mostly school children) at Andrew Kehoe's hands and another 58 casualties not including the death of his wife. This horrible act of violence was committed at a time in our country when you could walk down to your local hardware store and purchase a fully automatic Thompson submachine gun (they were very popular in the Sears catalog) with no background check mail order or in person. At the time it was called and anti-bandit gun. Machine guns, assault rifles, sawed off shotguns were not actually banned until 1934 under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (because of there use by gangsters during prohibition).
Back to my original point the worst massacre in school history was committed by a man who was filthy rich and had automatic firearms at his disposal but was perpetrated by explosives. The only shot fired was when Andrew Kehoe called the survivors out to his truck after blowing up the school (he was a school administrator and a trusted individual) he fired a single shot from a lever action rifle into a pile of explosives in his vehicle and killed everyone that approached the vehicle while simultaneously committing suicide.
One thing that stuck with me years ago when learning this albeit true or an opinion. Mr. Kehoe had made a stenciled a sign he hung the fence of his farm before he blew it up...
"Criminals are Made, Not Born."
@jorj none of my 5 children are criminals and their father and I divorced when they were preteens and their father was severely alcoholic. The reason my children went to several different schools, is because they would live with me and sometimes with their dad...at dad's house they kinda ran wild! Thank god nobody had guns, because it was a volatile place. I was struggling with part time jobs, trying to make ends meet, and was pretty much disconnected. But, we never had school shootings or any other kinds of shootings!
@Roman I was born in 1940...I was 9 years old, when my uncle shot and killed his wife, through the window of their house. That left 5 small children under my age, without parents. They had horrible life, one committed suicide!
@jorj but, that is my point we are the overall society! My 50-60 yr old children have many stories of family disfunctions and even horror stories about their friends, but none have gone out and shot up schools, stores or concerts!
@jorj well, that is the difference in how you and I take in information. Culturally, areas are a little different, but human behavior is the same. Children from the time of my children's generation, are scattered out all over the country, now. Lots of them were divorced, or came from divorced homes. None of them shot up any place! I am very familiar with the whole of the Atlanta area, which has a wide range of socioeconomic people. And I cannot recall a single 'shoot up,' and there are lots of divorced people in that area! You can trust me on that. I never judge the 'whole', by a few! We all have a small microcosm of a social order, in our own back yard. Human behavior, is the same...we just have different stressor, that trigger certain behaviors. When the anthologist, Richard Leaky, first started studing the ancient sculls, he found no evidence of violence in them. But, information was soon adjusted...as there was indeed cracked skulls, created from blows to the head. I can report, that in my first 50 years, it was robbers, family violence and now in then a shoot out with police! There were no mass shootings! And, I am/was, out and about in this country! That is just me paying attention.
@jorj maybe not for you...but I have made a life long purpose of studing society and what is happening around me...and I have lived from this end of the country to California!
@jorj if you have no personal experience, how can you judge what truth is? We all are exposed to the human condition, just under different cultures.
@jorj but what about my first 50 yrs of life, when we did not have guns in every household and we had single mothers and father's all over the place? You just totally, overlooked the Atlanta area, consisting of millions and millions of people (28 yrs ago).? No one went into a school and shot it up (there were some work place shoot-ups)! This 'shoot-up' situation, has increased since the NRA, began pushing the 'love of your 2nd amendment gun issue!'
@jorj from your post, it seems like you sincerely want to learn and understand things, but you are dismissing your most valuable source by not studing your own feelings and where/how they developed. Real power, comes when we know ourselves, as fully as possible. And this holds true no matter, what side of the Isle we are on. This takes time and work, but overtime, it will pay great dividends. Man is body, mind and spirit. When they are in harmony, that is when we are at our best. You can research this...
@jorj my thought is...you are 'casting your net too far'...
@jorj you are not bringing your own experience to the table! You are overreporting what others, are saying, not what your experience has taught you. Believe me, I am TOO, well informed on just about everything going on out in the world. But, my life is with my family, friends and the people that will cross my path, any where I am living. That is the main place that we learn and can be of help. This is where our life is played out and where our knowledge and experience is gained. Then we bring 'that' to the table and it is 'real' and authentic. Not someone else's taking points or what 'that other source' found out! This is where our strength lies...in our own truth...and if we learn new information that changes what we thought we knew, we make adjustments as truth is always evolving toward a greater truth!
@jorj I am not sure I understand, fully what you are trying to say. I do know that we each bring to the table our personal bias, research just works with numbers...then uses an average! Because, there is no way to count each individual case of anything. It is helpful to put ourselves in another person shoes, when we are trying to understand where they are coming from, for sure.
@jorj just in case this interest you, I just heard a lecture on IQ test and it says that an average below 90, is 30% of the population. We need at least 115 to make a good college student. I point this out, because it occurred to me that it must be very difficult, trying to convince people on the low spectrum scale, complex ideas. They are just not equipped to analyze complex problems. I think we should make sure we understand issues, and not get to overwrought if a lot of other people see issues different. In some cases, I can see where I would be wasting precious energy! (This is just something i gleaned from this IQ lecture, tonight.) A point that I might make, is mental illness, can be found in any family. Columbine students came from families of professionals! One couple got divorced afterwards and she (college professor) is speaking on Ted Talks. I have no other information on the other family.
@jorj from that lecture, that I watched...an IQ, cannot be brought up, much. I found out that you cannot be accepted into the military, with an IQ, lower than 83. Now, my own father, was rejected from the military in ww2, because of a 'learning disability.' (He was killed by a co-worker, working for DOT, when I was 28.) And, I do remember how he could hardly count correct change...right up until he was killed. Yes, this was Appalachia.
@jorj if you have not already done so, I think you would find it helpful, to read the biographies of our Founding Fathers. Biographies are all good sources of how people struggle to find truth.
You're right, you can't just take the guns from the good guys and leave them with the bad guys.
Step 1 should be stricter licencing and licence inspection. A gun owner should need a licence for each type of weapon they own, pistol/rifle/shotgun/AR etc. A young student or a city dweller should not be able to own an AR or shotgun for example. On the other hand it should be easier for a farmer to own a shotgun or a hunter to own a rifle. They should also have each weapon registered to them and the police should be able to inspect the weapon and correspoding licence ON DEMAND. Inspectors should be able to perform unscheduled checks, that you know where your weapon and ammunition is at any time and that it's safe from anyone else taking it. The wapon owner must be responsible for their weapon at all times. Police should also be able to spot check any one carrying a weapon (ID and weapon licence only, to prove they are the registered owner of any weapons they are carrying). I believe that in istelf will remove a lot of illegal weapons from circulation. This would of course depend on a better trained and better behaved police force, you need to be able to trust the people dealing with this. Also the cost would have to be passed on to the gun owner via the licence I'm afraid.
I saw a YT video of a young lad walking in the street with an AR and the police couldn't even ask who he was and what he was doing, I think that's crazy. He could have been on his way to a mass shooting, he could even have started one right there with the police.
So no, you can't take guns away from Americans but you can tighten the rules and enable the police to enforce those rules.
smoyle
Level 6
Mar 6, 2018
1
This post is full of backward reasoning and straw man arguments.
I’ll unravel some of it for you:
1- Banning mass casualty producing weapons is not a blanket ban on all firearms
2- Most people already register their firearms, willingly.
3- Many countries have dismantled their nuclear program and destroyed their nukes.
4- If our laws were based on whether or not criminals would adhere to it, we’d have zero laws.
5- Australia is a prime example for gun disarmament and how many lives are not lost to gun violence as a result. When other countries do something better, we SHOULD emulate them instead of taking pride in stupidity.
Marz
Level 7
Mar 6, 2018
3
Lol #4. Perfect!
"1- Banning mass casualty producing weapons is not a blanket ban on all firearms"
Many have been calling for the complete ban of all firearms in the hands of civilian entities for decades now whilst others call for semi bans such as what you have mentioned and others want no bans whatsoever. The purpose here is not to score points or "win" these discussions but to better work towards the best possible answer. If you see my words as simply a ball being tossed back into your court for you to throw next until one of us wins, then there is no need to continue speaking on the subject.
"2- Most people already register their firearms, willingly."
Nothing has been mentioned saying that people do not register their firearms. The only time I mentioned them was when speaking of the extreme outcome of a blanket ban and call for firearms and what the authorities would use to find guns that have not been turned in. Many do register, and many do not. I would like to hear what you mean by this statement and how it affects anything I have said or anything regarding the topic of bans in light of recent gun violence.
"3- Many countries have dismantled their nuclear program and destroyed their nukes."
If you have some sources to back this up, I would love to see them. It would be great news to hear that Russia and China of done away with their weapons and we're the only real ones lagging behind on getting rid of ours.
"4- If our laws were based on whether or not criminals would adhere to it, we’d have zero laws."
This is a false equivalency to what I said about the effects of certain laws on law abiding people versus criminals. Not all laws are created equally and different laws have different effects. The simple example is jaywalking. If someone jaywalks, it does not effect those who do not jaywalk. However, if someone speeds, it can affect those who do not. In the case of bans, such laws would greatly affect those who would follow the law versus those who would not. I have mentioned why, but I don't believe I really need to mention the reason at all. Laws are put into place to establish and maintain order. As such, laws must be crafted carefully and scrutinously considering all possible consequences before we can implement them. A law that blanketly bans guns would have serious consequences not because of the people who follow the law, but because of the people who do not.
"5- Australia is a prime example for gun disarmament and how many lives are not lost to gun violence as a result. When other countries do something better, we SHOULD emulate them instead of taking pride in stupidity."
I'm not sure how Australia is doing in terms of gun violence, but as I have mentioned before, America is not Australia. There are major differences that prevent solutions that work for one country for working for another. Perhaps in the long term, if such practices were adopted to this country, then it would eventually work out for the better, but the fallout in the meantime would be quite devastating to say the least. Are we just supposed to ride that out and wait for the dust to settle hoping that it all works out? Push through the risk that in worst case scenario we ultimately destroy ourselves fighting with guns to end guns? The fact is, a very large margin of this country, are die hard gun advocates. What you appear to be trying to do, is change people's who philosophies to reflect your own, as you believe yours is the correct one, as we all tend to do with our respective views. What this discussion is about, is establishing a system that works despite differing views. Dogmatism has never been a reliable method of establishing a system for societies, that's why secularism is at the forefront now in figuring out how we must go about things to ensure order and operational societies. It isn't pride that holds us back but well warranted caution in light of what we know about our situation intimately.
Marz:
The information I provide can be verified or debunked by a 1min google search. Slippery slope arguments grounded with maybe’s and what if’s are meaningless.
Here’s another to challenge your “a very large margin of this country are die hard gun advocates”:
- 97% Americans want universal background checks and 83% want a mandatory waiting period.
@Marz So, I'm getting the sense that your whole take when discussing anything is to put virtually no thought into anything you write and instead hope to score some sort of points by looking for what you believe to be fallacies without saying why you think they are fallacious or backing anything up to show it. I'm not sure how that statistic in any way shape or form, contradicts my statement that a very large margin of Americans are gun advocates. Not even sure your aim here is to stay on topic. You know what, if your aim here is just to get another "win" under your belt instead of any sort of informed exchange of ideas and information, aka a discussion, then you can have it, you win the game of discussion. Everyone, Marz has defeated me in his game and now I must walk the walk of shame. Now fly away with your trophy and make sure you brag to all your friends just how good you are at discussions. Brawndo approves. Plants don't grow out of the toilet.
Marz:
No reason to take a benign discussion and make it personal. You made a public statement, and I challenged it.
@Marz Yes, I made a post to inspire discussion about an important topic. I brought up common arguments on the topic and my thoughts on those arguments. You are trying to engage in some sort of game you believe yourself to be better at and can win simply by trying to point out fallacies and textbook problems believing that doing so is scoring you points in the game you're wanting to play. If you are not interested in a discussion about the topic, then you don't need to be here. I'm only interested in discussing these things, not winning some kind of debate. So far, none of what you have said, has contributed in any way to the discussion and have only served to show you have no desire to discuss it at all. This is why you don't need to be here. Many other people has contributed by expressing their views on the topic. Be like them.
Marz:
You seem awfully concerned with my motivations, instead of the topics of discussion.
Why don't people look into the fact that this has certainly been a product of deinstitutionalization in the US and that almost every mass shooter is dosed up to there eyeballs on antidepressants and other psychiatric drugs? Why not do something about some of these crazy people running around? Why not focus on trying to keep firearms and other weapons (IEDs, etc) out of these unstable individuals possession? Let's face the facts that traditional criminals almost never commit mass shootings unless it's related to organized crime or gangs, it's always some crazy teenager or unstable college student with a few exceptions. Also let's not forget the mass shooters who killed be cause their "god" told him it was as a good friggin idea, but don't get me started on religious zealots who do terrible things in the name of there BS god.
Roman
Level 5
Mar 6, 2018
2
Marz:
Is that “unstable” based on opinion or adjudication?
Yup I think it's safe to say he was unstable. And by adjudication, opions are worthless.
Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Julie Kessel : “We need more mental health services available to those in distress, and I applaud that intervention. However, projecting blame onto those with mental illness will have no meaningful impact on mass shootings. People with serious mental illness are far more likely to be the victim of violence rather than the cause of it.” (Source: The Florida Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence and League of Women Voters of Florida)
@PeppermintDreads Just curious, what is your question for? I'm not sure what else he could have been other than unstable but your question seems to imply you believe he was something else or something else was the cause.
I think defining the mentally ill to a much greatly degree of accuracy than the current vague definitions we have is ultimately what will be crucial in answering whether or not mental illness is genuinely responsible for the shootings and other mayhem. I mean, we can all say that this shooter was mentally ill specifically because of what they did, but often times those same people go through many things showing just how mentally stable they were before hand. So it makes you wonder if we simply lack the ability currently to determine to a fault, just what mental illness is, aside from the more obvious mental illnesses of course. Many serial killers were thought of as perfectly sane and great people before they were finally caught and the courts have determined them to be sane despite what they did. Until we have a much more concrete understanding on what mental illness really is, I don't think we can use it as any sort of basis for determining the cause of one person or another's decision to mass violence.
@jorj I agree with you on not banning but instead increasing the strictness of which laws work regarding availability for those weapons. Gun buying, selling, transportation, manufacturing, owning, and use all need to have much heavier restrictions and procedures put into place than what we currently have.
I think that gun control works very well in the UK (recent terrorists here had to use knives, cars and crude or fake bombs, imagine the catastrophy if gun laws were as relaxed as they are in the USA). I imagine the only challenge, in the US, is that there would be a big compensation bill from business as well as the public and I don't think any politician has the B+lls to face it. It's a big,big shame.
Another way to look at it, is to ask the question, "How many innocent lives have been sacrificed so that I can have fun with a gun"
GothRik
Level 7
Mar 6, 2018
2
Its school that should be got rid of.Its an old fashioned idea.Why have children and then force them to spend their one and only childhood in a cage.These school shootings are not really about guns.
Dam these are children.Why are they shooting up their schools?WHY?
findmegenie
Level 4
Mar 6, 2018
0
Your arguments are so full of holes that, if they were a boat, it would sink in 30 seconds. First, no one claims that limiting private ownership of assault weapons, semi-automatic rifles and pistols, and other weapons designed specifically to kill humans would eliminate nurder. But, data from other countries limiting gun ownership show a GREAT reduction in total murders bny all means anda near TOTAL elimination of mass murders. That shows clearly that increased gun ownership results in increased murders == that there is a causal link.
Second, our country does have the power to limit private owhership of guns whose primary purpose is to kill other humans. Gun huggers are being irrational and immoral. While the ATF mishandled Waco, they did not cause the disaster. Karesh and the hoarding of illegal weapons , along will Karesh's deciwsion to commit mass suicide did that.
Third, I can undersand how people enjoy target practice and cultivating marksmanship skills. I fired "expert " with the M-1 rifle myself. But weapons for that doe not have to be kept within arm's reach. Germany solved that probllem by allowing people to buy guns and keep them under lock and key in shooting clubs. It also allows the same for hunting clubs.
In short, limiting gun owneship does work. ALL international data show that. Myself, I would eliminate all guns except for shotguns bolt-action and lever-action rifles. That is all that one needs to funt, control varmits and to protect oneself.
wordywalt
Level 9
Mar 6, 2018
1
Cool story. Perhaps next time you could respond to what I said instead of what you wanted me to say?
All of that is BULL SHIT! GET RID OF THE FUCKING GUNS! It has been done elsewhere it can be done here.
Sticks48
Level 9
Mar 6, 2018
4
Fuck that.
@NothinnXpreVails Good comback...
Even a better reply to it. @Sticks48
@NothinnXpreVails Quoting Ron White " YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID".
You do not solve the problem by turning citizens against the solution. All of you gun haters and all of you ammosexuals have to find a compromise. All of you interested parties have to figure it out. You have to figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of the unstable. Both sides need that same goal. As much as I’m sure you hate the nra types, you’re not going to solve the problem by banning weaponry. On one side, you will create armed, paranoid citizens who think their rights are being trampled, while your side will be unarmed. Your plan will make things worse. Devise a new one that may actually work. @Sticks48
Oh, and lay off the ad hominem attacks. They cause you to lose credibility. @Sticks48
I am very pro conceal carry and very anti assult weapon. The conceal carry is effective against the criminal. An assault rifle not nearly as convenient and seems like rediculous overkill. I have to imagine the folks who need these are expecting a Steven Seagal movie to erupt in their back yard any minute.
Tominator
Level 6
Mar 6, 2018
3
I hope it's not the more recent Seagal movies. They're just horrible now. Some of you might think they were all horrible, but the earlier ones had some semblance of good action movies lol
@Piece2YourPuzzle And dialogue. "ScrewFace give me a tousand deaths worse than you. Find him your f'kin' self!"
@Piece2YourPuzzle Some of his first movies actually had a message like "On Deadly Ground" message about pollution/
Your whole mindset as a country needs changing instead of idolising stupid people who are constantly afraid reeducate them and stop them being afraid
Simon1
Level 7
Mar 6, 2018
1
Says who?
@PeppermintDreads didn't do much American history in Wales lol
@SimonMorgan1 My aunt used to say "Before a person judges a neighbor, he must ask himself why his achievements -if any- are so insignificant."
BTW, my aunt was part of the civilizzzzzzzzzzzzzzed world.
@SimonMorgan1 Besides NO understanding my aunt's wise words....when are you going to start the change you so adamantly suggest? See, dear, you don't have the right to tell others how to rearrange the furniture in THEIR living-room.
@SimonMorgan1 Dear...you one of those who always finds the straw in the other person's eye but never the entire broom in his own. See, dear, a bomb can kill hundred more than a gun....Only an example. Bye.
Why don't you listen to those kids in Parkland, FL-wise beyond their years? They have the right to change.
sassygirl3869
Level 9
Mar 6, 2018
3
I remember how "wise-beyond my years" I was in high school...roll eyes. By definition they are children. Children are not wise or mature they do and think foolish things. If that were not true, we could make the age of majority 12 (or 11 or 10 or 9, etc.) instead of 18. They are acting emotionally because they are children (just as I was at that age).
@dahermit they sure have the intelligence to know that they do not want to die, nor see any other child in a school die!
I get there message and it's good intentions, but remember at the same time these are the same kids that were eating Tide Pods 2 months ago.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.