Where Do You Stand On Gun Control/Second Amendment?

[TedEH]

In our sick society, someone who wants to murder mass amounts of people, will, given the opportunity.

Fixed that for you.
Motive + opportunity = bad stuff happens.
Motive + no opportunity = bad things prevented.

The point of gun control isn't to reduce motive, it's to reduce opportunity.

 

[narad]

Im still waiting for someone to address my question woth a proper answer. Because I do actually agree that if there were less guns there should be less shootings.

But what happens if we ban all guns, to even the most severe degree, if the very next day there is another mass shooting. What do you suggest then?

Herein lies the, if theres a will theres a way.....because if not a gun, it'll be something else. In our sick society, someone who wants to murder mass amounts of people, will.

I already talked about this point. It doesn't matter if one person still finds a way. It matters if in aggregate there is a decline in mass shootings. Maybe some people still are so determined to find a way, but maybe some aren't. Maybe tighter control provides greater opportunity to discover these plans before they happen, etc. And if (not that ANYONE IS SUGGESTING IT) all guns were banned, and the amount of school shootings did not decrease, then we'd have to admit we were wrong and we need to look elsewhere to combat the problem.

That's a huge IF.

 

[Unslaved]

I already talked about this point. It doesn't matter if one person still finds a way. It matters if in aggregate there is a decline in mass shootings. Maybe some people still are so determined to find a way, but maybe some aren't. Maybe tighter control provides greater opportunity to discover these plans before they happen, etc. And if (not that ANYONE IS SUGGESTING IT) all guns were banned, and the amount of school shootings did not decrease, then we'd have to admit we were wrong and we need to look elsewhere to combat the problem.

That's a huge IF.

Ok, you didnt actually answer the question directly the first time, rather you wanted to address a more "broad" situation if I remember correctly.

But thanks for answering my question...and if you read a couple posts back I did admit to say that if there were less guns in existence, then, obviously there would be less shootings

 

[Unslaved]

Fixed that for you.
Motive + opportunity = bad stuff happens.
Motive + no opportunity = bad things prevented.

The point of gun control isn't to reduce motive, it's to reduce opportunity.

What are you basing that on....That if there is a motive, but no opportunity that equals bad things prevented?

 

[MaxOfMetal]

But what happens if we ban all guns, to even the most severe degree, if the very next day there is another mass shooting. What do you suggest then?

Then we'll evaluate where the loophole is that allowed that to happen, either from a societal/mental health perspective or from a firearm law perspective.

As of now, when a mass shooting happens we do practically fuck all.

Herein lies the, if theres a will theres a way.....because if not a gun, it'll be something else. In our sick society, someone who wants to murder mass amounts of people, will.

What way? Explosives? Thanks to proper legislation it's incredibly difficult and expensive to make "good" bombs while going unnoticed by authorities. That's why almost all the ones you've heard about the last two decades have been very small and inefficient.

Knives? There's actually a good amount of laws governing those as well, but since they are also pretty easy to get a hold of, there are attacks, but they are several orders of magnitude less terrible than mass shootings.

 

[Unslaved]

Then we'll evaluate where the loophole is that allowed that to happen, either from a societal/mental health perspective or from a firearm law perspective.

As of now, when a mass shooting happens we do practically fuck all.



What way? Explosives? Thanks to proper legislation it's incredibly difficult and expensive to make "good" bombs while going unnoticed by authorities. That's why almost all the ones you've heard about the last two decades have been very small and inefficient.

Knives? There's actually a good amount of laws governing those as well, but since they are also pretty easy to get a hold of, there are attacks, but they are several orders of magnitude less terrible than mass shootings.

I didn't say bombs but since you brought it up. What about the string of recent package bombings in Texas? The latest one being a guy triggering a trip wire, that led to a bomb and blew the guy up.

People are getting creative...

Theres a myriad of chemicals one can make a deadly concoction from. Then there are trucks and stuff like that for starters...

Wheres the proof showing that if Cruz, specifically didnt have access to guns, he wouldnt have found a way to kill 20 people?

 

[TedEH]

What are you basing that on....That if there is a motive, but no opportunity that equals bad things prevented?

Common sense? If there's no opportunity for something to happen, it doesn't happen.

 

[Unslaved]

That dumb kid David Hogg just came out and said "I have to use my white privilege to talk to black people about gun control". Thats insulting to both blacks and whites

 

[Unslaved]

Common sense? If there's no opportunity for something to happen, it doesn't happen.

If you believe that then I have some of Saddams nuclear weapons to sell you. Lol

 

[narad]

Wheres the proof showing that if Cruz, specifically didnt have access to guns, he wouldnt have found a way to kill 20 people?

There isn't. But ask yourself why there aren't really any school bombings / truck incidents. We already know what the modus operandi of these mass killings is.

 

[narad]

That dumb kid David Hogg just came out and said "I have to use my white privilege to talk to black people about gun control". Thats insulting to both blacks and whites

Is that the actual quote? I think you've got it wrong.

 

[Drew]

Im still waiting for someone to address my question woth a proper answer. Because I do actually agree that if there were less guns there should be less shootings.

But what happens if we ban all guns, to even the most severe degree, if the very next day there is another mass shooting. What do you suggest then?

Herein lies the, if theres a will theres a way.....because if not a gun, it'll be something else. In our sick society, someone who wants to murder mass amounts of people, will.

What do we suggest? That we cross that bridge when we get there. You're assuming it's going to happen. What if it doesn't? We ban all guns, and then... nothing? What happens then?

Or, we ban AR-15s, and then the very next day there's a mass school shooting... where a gunman armed with a handgun kills four people in a crowded hallway, but someone tackles him while he's trying to reload and no further injuries occur. I mean, yeah, it'd be tragic... But four to six people is a whole heck of a lot less than 17, you know?

And, here's the thing with the question you keep posing. We honestly don't know what's going to happen, because we have seen so few instances in the last 20-30 years in this country where gun control actually was meaningfully increased, because the NRA has done such an effective job stonewalling all efforts and gutting or rendering ineffective the handful of times we've seen some marginal improvement, that we really don't have a large enough sample of experiences to draw on to say with any degree of statistical certainty what would happen if we did increase the barriers between someone with a tendency for violence and a high-powered firearm.

In fact, about the only thing we CAN say, is over the last 30-40 years consistently weakened the barriers to obtaining a firearm in this country, and today, the likelihood of american dying as the result of a firearm is higher by an order of magnitude than in any other first world, and a majority of second world, nations. So, seeing as we've tried it your way for a couple decades, and it hasn't worked, maybe it's time to try something different. We don't know what happens the day after we ban ownership of guns, or of "assault rifles,"' or enact far stricter gun control... But, I have an awfully hard time picturing it any worse than what we've got today.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

I didn't say bombs but since you brought it up. What about the string of recent package bombings in Texas? The latest one being a guy triggering a trip wire, that led to a bomb and blew the guy up.

People are getting creative...

Theres a myriad of chemicals one can make a deadly concoction from. Then there are trucks and stuff like that for starters...

Wheres the proof showing that if Cruz, specifically didnt have access to guns, he wouldnt have found a way to kill 20 people?

Of the five confirmed bombs, there are only two fatalities. As I said, making incredibly deadly, powerful bombs is very very difficult these days.

Not that these bombings aren't terrible. Though I don't think more or less guns would have any influence on the bombings. Have any data to counter that?

It doesn't work like that. Without a gun he sure wouldn't have shot those people. That's a fact. Can you prove that he would have been able to kill 20 people by other means? Anything less than 20 is still a net positive, so hypothetically he could have used a knife to kill a couple students, but I doubt that the cops would have been as nervous to engage and many could have simply out ran him.

The gun he used, a S&W AR15, only went for $600 new, not on sale. You it's difficult to make a destructive bomb with that kind of cash, or buy a running truck to plow into people.

 

[Unslaved]

What do we suggest? That we cross that bridge when we get there. You're assuming it's going to happen. What if it doesn't? We ban all guns, and then... nothing? What happens then?

Or, we ban AR-15s, and then the very next day there's a mass school shooting... where a gunman armed with a handgun kills four people in a crowded hallway, but someone tackles him while he's trying to reload and no further injuries occur. I mean, yeah, it'd be tragic... But four to six people is a whole heck of a lot less than 17, you know?

And, here's the thing with the question you keep posing. We honestly don't know what's going to happen, because we have seen so few instances in the last 20-30 years in this country where gun control actually was meaningfully increased, because the NRA has done such an effective job stonewalling all efforts and gutting or rendering ineffective the handful of times we've seen some marginal improvement, that we really don't have a large enough sample of experiences to draw on to say with any degree of statistical certainty what would happen if we did increase the barriers between someone with a tendency for violence and a high-powered firearm.

In fact, about the only thing we CAN say, is over the last 30-40 years consistently weakened the barriers to obtaining a firearm in this country, and today, the likelihood of american dying as the result of a firearm is higher by an order of magnitude than in any other first world, and a majority of second world, nations. So, seeing as we've tried it your way for a couple decades, and it hasn't worked, maybe it's time to try something different. We don't know what happens the day after we ban ownership of guns, or of "assault rifles,"' or enact far stricter gun control... But, I have an awfully hard time picturing it any worse than what we've got today.

Yes I see what you are saying but then again you have to look at the virginia tech case where he killed 30 with multiple handguns.

 

[Unslaved]

Of the five confirmed bombs, there are only two fatalities. As I said, making incredibly deadly, powerful bombs is very very difficult these days.

Not that these bombings aren't terrible. Though I don't think more or less guns would have any influence on the bombings. Have any data to counter that?

It doesn't work like that. Without a gun he sure wouldn't have shot those people. That's a fact. Can you prove that he would have been able to kill 20 people by other means? Anything less than 20 is still a net positive, so hypothetically he could have used a knife to kill a couple students, but I doubt that the cops would have been as nervous to engage and many could have simply out ran him.

The gun he used, a S&W AR15, only went for $600 new, not on sale. You it's difficult to make a destructive bomb with that kind of cash, or buy a running truck to plow into people.

Thats true. And i also dont know if he was actually trying to kill people. He could have just been trying to hurt them. So I dont think he was trying to kill a large amount of people. Not yet anyway...

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

There's a joke in there somewhere.

At this point, the entire thread is a joke.

 

[Unslaved]

We had a list of 500,000 criminals that can not buy a gun and Obamas gang deleted those people from that list.

Can anyone else chime in and say, well that cant be good.

Lets look at two other things that dont add up. In florida and sandy hook.

Why did Lanza destroy the hard drive on his computer if he was just going to kill himself anyway? Seems like a lot of trouble to go through for something that wouldnt matter at the outcome

It was reported that Cruz admitted that he heard a voice in his head telling him to do what he did. Why is there no one talking about that? These huge tidbits of information seem to get overlooked by just about everybody.

After the florida shooting on The Talk (talk show) it was" its a gun problem, why...gun this? Why....gun that? Ban....guns.

Today on The Talk involving the Maryland shooting, everything was mental health this, mental health that....little to no mention of gun problem/control. So what gives?

 

[JoshuaVonFlash]

Is that the actual quote? I think you've got it wrong.

Of course he got it wrong:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...to_make_sure_black_gun_victims_are_heard.html

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

Talk shows... white privilege... the only thing missing is someone in a KKK hood and Jerry Springer.

 

[narad]

Of course he got it wrong:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...to_make_sure_black_gun_victims_are_heard.html

Yep, that sounds a lot more believable. There he was getting offended for whites and blacks when there was nothing to be offended about in the first place.