Another mass shooting in America
- Thread starter fps
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
But do you think people should be legally allowed to have them? Right to bare arms and all?
Konfyouzd
Return of the Dread-I
The right to bear arms thing gets misinterpretted and blown out proportion a lot. I couldn't care less if others own them or not. You can get some very large capacity semi autos and you can get off MANY rounds with a semi auto fairly quickly; learned that after spending some time at the range.
Automatics more than likely up the potential number of casualties but part of me feels like it might just be splitting hairs if we can agree that mental "instability" is the problem.
Automatics more than likely up the potential number of casualties but part of me feels like it might just be splitting hairs if we can agree that mental "instability" is the problem.
There is no single issue, there is a large group of issues, of which mental health problems can cause an urge to kill, and guns are the means by which that urge can be fulfilled. To reiterate, mental instability (and that in itself is a gross oversimplification of myriad unrelated things, kinda like saying *body injury* as a catch-all for anything that happens to the body) can cause an urge to kill large groups of people, but that's only possible if there is a tool available that allows a mentally unstable person to do so, and that tool, time after time, is a gun. It's important to look at the things that HAVE happened, rather than wave a hand and say *oh they'd do something else otherwise*. That something else can be tackled later but it's clearly more difficult to do than getting a gun, cos that's what they do now, so you're creating an obstacle that could save lives, so more families don't have to suffer like this.
Why are automatic weapons not allowed legally? All legal guns are being kept in a cabinet with the ammo somewhere else and are used to do a bit of hunting or go down the gun club occasionally by utterly sane people right? Or in self-defence. So why is there a problem? The second amendment is held on to hard as the reason that guns should be allowed in the hands of anyone in America who wants one, it's one of the key battle cries politically against any further regulation of gun ownership, so it's a big deal.
Perhaps just be guns from 1791 and before should be allowed?
Konfyouzd
Return of the Dread-I
There are SO many possible tools. And yes I'm aware that mental illness is vague. That was the intention. There could be any number of reasons a person decides they wanna hurt themselves or other people and I think that trying to understands these reasons as opposed to simply letting them be and taking away anything with which these people might hurt themselves or others is a more effective use of our time. If you disagree that's fine, but I really don't want to keep going back and forth on what I see to be the same subject with different examples...
In winter time or perhaps a place that is typically very cold a large coat wouldn't necessarily be suspicious now would it? And folks have been known to strap bombs to themselves and go into public places with the intention of taking out of a lot of people. Far be it for me to think that w/o guns something like this is still very possible. Let the gun thing go... If you don't like them that's fine, but I don't think the gun itself is what's making people want to kill. There's something else driving them to pick up a gun and do what they do with it. You kill the snake by cutting off the head.
You miss the point. I cite real events, everyone else is citing hypothetical events that DO NOT EXIST. *Oh well they COULD do this.* Well they don't. When a lone person decides to kill a crowd of people, he (always he) uses guns. Guns guns guns! I am citing real things that have actually happened. You are suggesting things that might happen. They are not the same, your things are NOT REAL. This isn't a back and forth, it's me giving concrete examples of things that have happened and then other people apparently not being able to distinguish real things from things they imagine.
And again, it's not an either/or, BOTH, BOTH is the answer.
We're going round in circles because my points are not being answered. They are being deflected.
Konfyouzd
Return of the Dread-I
Good lord...
Okay you win. I just don't fuckin' care anymore...
Okay you win. I just don't fuckin' care anymore...
No, I want a debate. I want you to answer my points properly. Why would you think just one thing is the answer to this problem to the exclusion of all else? You should care, and of COURSE you care. Everyone cares. And they should be asking themselves what are ALL the things that could have been done to prevent this from happening? And the pattern is men with guns walking into places and shooting people.
By the way the paper I'm reading says the guns were legally owned by this guy's mother, who he lived with.
Konfyouzd
Return of the Dread-I
Clarification: I don't care about this debate anymore because you already have your mind made up. This is now pointless. Probably the reason we're the only two people even posting in this thread anymore. I'm out...
The guns used belonged to the guy's mother, legally. What other conclusion can be drawn than that if she didn't have them he wouldn't have been able to do this on this day, and there is the possibility the whole event would not have happened? There need to be more stringent checks on guns, who owns them, and who gets to have them, definitely.
Konfyouzd
Return of the Dread-I
The fact that if he didn't have that gun available and really wanted to hurt someone he still could have found a way. Maybe it wouldn't have been a shooting at a school due to logistics but the lack of that particular tool is not going to stop someone from hurting other people is that's how they really feel. Please stop making me repeat myself. Read your own thread.
^ Although what you are saying is true, and I agree that without access to guns this guy could still do some damage as they are only elementary school children after all, there is a pretty big jump in lethality between a cutting/bludgeoning weapon/fists etc and a firearm.
Konfyouzd
Return of the Dread-I
I never specified the weapon and also said that it may not have been the same situation at all without the gun but it wouldn't have stopped him from hurting people. But let's just take your example...
If he'd bludgeoned/stabbed/sucker punched just ONE child/person/whatever... Is that better? Fuck no...
Why not try to understand what it is that makes people want to hurt others instead? I can't help but think that perhaps *some* people didn't get the proper nurturing growing up and that *sometimes* they'll take that out on people that had nothing to do with it because of either some false association they've made in their mind, a complete lack of reasoning altogether or something somewhere in between.
Whatever the case, I couldn't care less whether or not we're "allowed" to have guns. I just don't think taking them away will keep people from finding ways to take people out.
Folks have planted bombs before...
Strapped bombs to themselves...
Make home made throwable/plantable explosives...
Drive your car into a crowd (based on what I see in traffic on a daily basis they seem to just be handing out driver's licenses too)...
Some of these have been brought up before, and I realize that they're less common, but I feel like that's only because there's what most would consider to be a quicker, more effective means of completing the task. That said, with the most effective gone, the next effective becomes the go-to move...
It might also be interesting if we just outlawed "concealed" weapons. In other words, everyone must open carry.
On the one hand... YES... Criminals will still conceal; that's a no brainer. But maybe if they saw the number of people in that area that DID have guns they'd be slightly less ballsy. That or they'd continue to prey on areas where they know the majority wouldn't have one, like a school.
I just really don't think that a person sick enough to open fire on children would be any less likely to do something crazy if he'd had to choose another tool.
If he'd bludgeoned/stabbed/sucker punched just ONE child/person/whatever... Is that better? Fuck no...
Why not try to understand what it is that makes people want to hurt others instead? I can't help but think that perhaps *some* people didn't get the proper nurturing growing up and that *sometimes* they'll take that out on people that had nothing to do with it because of either some false association they've made in their mind, a complete lack of reasoning altogether or something somewhere in between.
Whatever the case, I couldn't care less whether or not we're "allowed" to have guns. I just don't think taking them away will keep people from finding ways to take people out.
Folks have planted bombs before...
Strapped bombs to themselves...
Make home made throwable/plantable explosives...
Drive your car into a crowd (based on what I see in traffic on a daily basis they seem to just be handing out driver's licenses too)...
Some of these have been brought up before, and I realize that they're less common, but I feel like that's only because there's what most would consider to be a quicker, more effective means of completing the task. That said, with the most effective gone, the next effective becomes the go-to move...
It might also be interesting if we just outlawed "concealed" weapons. In other words, everyone must open carry.
On the one hand... YES... Criminals will still conceal; that's a no brainer. But maybe if they saw the number of people in that area that DID have guns they'd be slightly less ballsy. That or they'd continue to prey on areas where they know the majority wouldn't have one, like a school.
I just really don't think that a person sick enough to open fire on children would be any less likely to do something crazy if he'd had to choose another tool.
Greatoliver
Looking to windward
I just really don't think that a person sick enough to open fire on children would be any less likely to do something crazy if he'd had to choose another tool.
I think the issue is that guns are very damaging - you just pull a trigger and someone dies. If you have a knife, it is more personal as you have to be closer, and is arguably harder to kill someone. I agree that removing guns won't stop things like this from happening, but it does make it more difficult to commit such an atrocious act.
Konfyouzd
Return of the Dread-I
Point has been made and considered several times over... Saying it again and again isn't going to change the fact that I strongly believe people will just find another way if it's really what they want to do...
There are people who abduct people and chop them up in a basement... Some of them end up killing a shitload of people before they get caught/turn themselves in because no one can find them. Equally atrocious. Why go after just one type of atrocity? And I find it hard to believe that the people close to these folks didn't notice that they were somewhat disturbed. It just seems weird. Then again you always hear the story, "He was so nice... I just don't know why he--"
There are people who abduct people and chop them up in a basement... Some of them end up killing a shitload of people before they get caught/turn themselves in because no one can find them. Equally atrocious. Why go after just one type of atrocity? And I find it hard to believe that the people close to these folks didn't notice that they were somewhat disturbed. It just seems weird. Then again you always hear the story, "He was so nice... I just don't know why he--"
The Norsemen
A Viking
Most people accept that if you really want a weapon to do something bad with, you will get it. Why is it still a debate to make acquiring a gun more in depth (or "harder") so that we can fully assess who the hell is buying said gun and why. Most sane people calling for gun regulation (that I know at least, and being at one of the biggest schools in the world, I know a lot of people) are simply trying to minimize the amount of crazies who own a gun and in states without permitting requirements we want to put a name and a face behind the gun to maybe make someone take some responsibility with their gun. Why does this scare people who own guns, we aren't taking guns away unless you're not stable enough to own one. I own a gun but it is locked away until I go camping somewhere where I need a gun to defend myself against animals.
If we do a good mental evaluation that may minimize not just the amount of mentally ill people with guns but also minimize gun violence from domestic disputes. Obviously, like I've said before, some can just lose it after the evaluation but that isn't an argument against any sort of regulation/testing, that is just something that can happen when guns are readily available and while humans are still dumb angry assholes. Maybe a test renewal would need to happen every few years to cut down even more but I would need to find or conduct some studies to see the optimal time frame for that. Again, minimizing gun violence is the name of the game, there is no stopping humans from hurting other humans, only minimizing.
I feel like some better regulation of guns is a great middle ground, but we aren't getting anywhere with the party split in America with the us against them mentality.
Removing guns entirely would lead to a probable optimal minimization of domestic violence and things of that nature but I'm not entirely for that and most of my friends and colleagues aren't either, maybe we're just stuck in our old ways though. Though I'm not going to use my gun to defend myself against another gun, it leads to a standoff of scared apes and whichever one is more scared will probably pull the trigger first. The statistics even proof that sort of thing happens.
All of this is just fear, I won't go into how outrageous some peoples' fears are because I can't change that but I will say that fear lately in america is from all the fear mongering on both sides and sensationalism of the media.
If we do a good mental evaluation that may minimize not just the amount of mentally ill people with guns but also minimize gun violence from domestic disputes. Obviously, like I've said before, some can just lose it after the evaluation but that isn't an argument against any sort of regulation/testing, that is just something that can happen when guns are readily available and while humans are still dumb angry assholes. Maybe a test renewal would need to happen every few years to cut down even more but I would need to find or conduct some studies to see the optimal time frame for that. Again, minimizing gun violence is the name of the game, there is no stopping humans from hurting other humans, only minimizing.
I feel like some better regulation of guns is a great middle ground, but we aren't getting anywhere with the party split in America with the us against them mentality.
Removing guns entirely would lead to a probable optimal minimization of domestic violence and things of that nature but I'm not entirely for that and most of my friends and colleagues aren't either, maybe we're just stuck in our old ways though. Though I'm not going to use my gun to defend myself against another gun, it leads to a standoff of scared apes and whichever one is more scared will probably pull the trigger first. The statistics even proof that sort of thing happens.
All of this is just fear, I won't go into how outrageous some peoples' fears are because I can't change that but I will say that fear lately in america is from all the fear mongering on both sides and sensationalism of the media.
Konfyouzd
Return of the Dread-I
Los Angeles Times bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wall Street bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
George Metesky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oklahoma City bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ted Kaczynski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
about a minutes worth of e-investigating brought up many more.
Watty
Naturally Cynical
Dude, obviously we know now that you feel strongly about the issue. And that's fine. However, when it gets to be that 1 out of every 3 posts are yours reaffirming that people will always find a way to do violence, I think you can bow out or offer a new argument. And we're "going after" one type of atrocity because it's so common and requires little to no skill. Sure, someone could plan out bombings/killings/etc in the vein of "Law Abiding Citizen," but at the end of the day, the gun represents the greatest percentage of violent crime when considering how easy it is to use and get ahold of.
Uh, I think that ANY police department in the nation could present you with a room full of reports filed on violence done by guns. Bringing up 40% of the notable bombings in the last century won't do much to help your case, especially given the reasons already discussed as to why bombing is not as feasible a means to kill people for the general populace.
