Yes, it is a point that could relate to this situation, but as I say. Replies about this need to be respectful in all aspects.

This is a tragedy, but as others have stated, restricting guns will not solve this, nor will adding harsher gun laws. The problem lies within the fact that a radical anything will get their hands on whatever they want, to do the deed they wish to achieve. Imposing harsher gun laws or outright banning them just hurts those who have done nothing wrong. To me a fundamental flaw that occurred here is that this particular shooter was already being investigated by the FBI, but nothing was done despite according to the FBI, had tie in's with ISIS and other extremists. 

 

At the end of the day many people will blame a plethora of different things. People will blame his religious background, others will blame guns, whilst some will target terrorism to be the culprit. In my opinion it's none of the aforementioned and yet all of the aforementioned in their own way, none of which I will go into detail as that will open a whole different can of worms. 

 

As I said, restricting guns and or outright banning them will only anger and hurt those who have them and use them legally. It's like allowing everyone who owns an electric car to drive, but restricting or banning those who drive a regular gas using car. 

2 hours ago, Prophet said:

I will just leave this here.

"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret) Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims aremostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat— it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by theyoung, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of acivilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

That's a very poetic view of gun culture, and one that a lot of gun owners possess because of the pride it gives them. An armed society is not a polite society, at least not according to research. These studies have shown that violence is more likely to occur in the presence of a firearm. Just thought I would share.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16434012

https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/american-public-health-association/when-concealed-handgun-licensees-break-bad-criminal-convictions-of-patzzJ6ljx?articleList=%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3Dfirearms%26dateFacetFrom%3DNOW%2FDAY-5YEARS%26internal_rental_state%3Drentable%26journal_journal_name[]%3DAmerican%2BJournal%2Bof%2BPublic%2BHealth

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bsl.2172/abstract;jsessionid=09D1D7D0EA798D7D280D3209C92A3FCC.f03t01

https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/american-public-health-association/when-concealed-handgun-licensees-break-bad-criminal-convictions-of-patzzJ6ljx?articleList=%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3Dfirearms%26dateFacetFrom%3DNOW%2FDAY-5YEARS%26internal_rental_state%3Drentable%26journal_journal_name[]%3DAmerican%2BJournal%2Bof%2BPublic%2BHealth

A lot of people here are saying that more people have guns so that shootings like this are prevented, sorry I'm just not down with this, what should happen is that people who do qualify to carry guns, we need to make sure that those folks are adequately trained, and knowledgeable about their gun. 

 

Also so this is very sad, I hope all the families can recover from this. 

.

 

 

Edited June 14, 20169 yr by Prophet

37 minutes ago, Prophet said:

Same link twice, both literally add nothing to this debate. I kek'd

Ok, that's your opinion. The research stands.

 

37 minutes ago, Prophet said:

This is basically a thesis which ends with the words "could be a more effective".

and...? They're offering suggestions for solutions based upon their research. They're Ph.Ds, that's kinda what they do.

37 minutes ago, Prophet said:

This is not singling out gun owners but also puts them in the same category as " Males, young adults, binge drinkers, those who do not believe most people can be trusted, those ever arrested for a non-traffic violation, and motorists who had been in a vehicle in which there was a gun were more likely to engage in such forms of road rage. " Which is a HUGE generalization.

It's not actually, its one of their findings. They found that having a gun in the car was one of the factors when looking at who was more likely to commit acts of road rage. Instead of looking at it as a generalization of gun owners as bad people, look at it like this: having a gun emboldens angry people to do violence. If you'd like to disagree with the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, go ahead. I won't argue on behalf of them to try to change your mind.

And besides that, the idea that "an armed society is a polite society" doesn't make sense. There are more guns than people in the country. If I'm in a confrontation with someone in virtually any place in the country, there is always the risk that they could pull out a gun and shoot me. Yet somehow, with all of those hundreds of millions of guns in circulation, we're still not a "polite society". Canada sure seems more polite than us, even with significantly less guns per capita. How many more guns would it take to get to the point where guns are a deterrent to violence in the way that Major Caudill describes? Its empty platitudes and "what ifs" that are meant to make you feel better, nothing more.

There are plenty more articles that use examples other than road rage, they prove essentially the same point and you'll have no problem finding them.

Edited June 13, 20169 yr by Riley24

.

Edited June 14, 20169 yr by Prophet

2 hours ago, Hystery said:

Understandable point of view, though damageable, at least in my opinion. Thanks for clearing this out.

 

If we follow your logic, why making laws in the first place, since non-abiding criminals won't abide to them anyway? That's a flawed trail of thought. Laws are made to punish people from trespassing them, and that punishment is what should prevent them from doing so.

Not an issue at all. We're all simply sharing our views and what we think would solve the problem.

1 hour ago, Solidefiance said:

As I said, restricting guns and or outright banning them will only anger and hurt those who have them and use them legally. It's like allowing everyone who owns an electric car to drive, but restricting or banning those who drive a regular gas using car. 

I'm trying to figure out why it's so difficult for people to grasp the concept of this.

1 hour ago, Riley24 said:

An armed society is not a polite society, at least not according to research. These studies have shown that violence is more likely to occur in the presence of a firearm. 

I could easily disspell that statement, just take a look at Switzerland. According to research, men between the ages of 20 and 34 are conscripted into the militia and undergo militaristic weapons training. Weapons are to remain at homes in Switzerland, and there are more assault rifles in the country than any other type of firearm. There are over 400,000 assault rifles in Switzerland yet it has the lowest crime rate in the world. About 45.7 of every 100 people own a gun in Switzerland. In 2014, Switzerland had the lowest murder rate for 33 years, 0.49 of every 100,000 population. 

The numbers just don't add up to what you're saying. So I'll say again, guns aren't the problem. People are the problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Edited June 13, 20169 yr by TheDivineHustle

18 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I'm trying to figure out why it's so difficult for people to grasp the concept of this.

 

I'm assuming it's because a lot of these people come from different Countries that have their own laws and regulations on firearms and the like. For example it's a lot harder for someone that resides in Europe to understand North American gun laws and laws in general because they are so vastly different. When I say "understand" I mean a lot of European laws for firearms are restrictive and have been from the start, this isn't the case for America or other Countries, inherently the comparison of "change America's gun laws to be that of -insert European Country here-" and that'll fix all of America's problems become the ultimate argument. 

 

In other words, what one countries gun law works for them, will not or may not necessarily work for another. I'd like to also point out that -insert European country- gun law(s) didn't stop a terrorist attack either, because guess what, when an extremist wants to kill or do something with harmful intent, a gun law isn't going to stop him. 

 

Interestingly or perhaps annoyingly whenever a terrorist attack occurs in America the immediate subject is changed to America's gun laws.  

11 minutes ago, Solidefiance said:

I'm assuming it's because a lot of these people come from different Countries that have their own laws and regulations on firearms and the like. For example it's a lot harder for someone that resides in Europe to understand North American gun laws and laws in general because they are so vastly different. When I say "understand" I mean a lot of European laws for firearms are restrictive and have been from the start, this isn't the case for America or other Countries, inherently the comparison of "change America's gun laws to be that of -insert European Country here-" and that'll fix all of America's problems become the ultimate argument. 

 

In other words, what one countries gun law works for them, will not or may not necessarily work for another. I'd like to also point out that -insert European country- gun law(s) didn't stop a terrorist attack either, because guess what, when an extremist wants to kill or do something with harmful intent, a gun law isn't going to stop him. 

 

Interestingly or perhaps annoyingly whenever a terrorist attack occurs in America the immediate subject is changed to America's gun laws.  

You could argue that while gun control laws won't permanently stop attacks like this, it will definitely lessen them. 

29 minutes ago, Prophet said:

Not gonna continue with this -Snip- measuring contest with you. You keep making me Kek.

Let me just add this last bit. When I leave the house with my wife, I know for certain I have the opportunity to protect myself, her and possibly others in the event of a shooting, only because I practice concealed carry.

That is something you can't argue.

Yes, in the event that you're in an active shooter situation, having a gun gives you the opportunity to defend yourself. But being in that situation at any point in your life is extremely unlikely, and its actually far more likely that an accidental death could occur. I'm guessing you'll "kek" again if I share those stats with you, so I won't bother.

I'm sure you're the most responsible gun owner in the world, as everyone claims to be. If it makes you feel safe, go ahead. But when millions of people arm themselves due to fear of an unlikely situation, we see countless people die instead. Its the grim reality I'm sure you'll "kek" at.

Seems like we've reached that point in debate where we continue to go around in circles. Usually happens when a point has been proven and can't be logically debated any further. I will drop out of the thread until a new, valid argument is presented.

Great discussion everyone!

16 minutes ago, Solidefiance said:

Interestingly or perhaps annoyingly whenever a terrorist attack occurs in America the immediate subject is changed to America's gun laws.  

Because the gunmen in question was a person of interest to federal agencies who had links to extremists groups, yet was still able to purchase firearms legally. Do you seriously not see the issue with this? The United States seemingly has a mass shooting every week yet no other civilized country has these problems. Why is this? Because they have gun laws. Australia had no restrictions on firearms up until the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, which resulted in the banishment of all fully automatic weapons and most rifles. A valid reason is required to own a firearm, and "personal defense" is not one of them.

I don't believe the United States should completely banish all firearms, however nation wide restrictions and regulations NEED to be implemented along with the banishment of fully automatic weapons. Nobody outside of military and/or law enforcement should have access to a fully automatic assault rifle, especially not known criminals and those tied to extremist terrorist groups.

32 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I use those words because law abiding citizens aren't going to break the law. What you aren't understanding is that new gun laws only affect those that obey the law, and those that probably wouldn't have broken previous laws to begin with. It doesn't matter what you decide to write down on paper, criminals aren't going to abide. They're going to get their guns, either legally or illegally depending on the strictness of the laws, and they're going to do what they do best; break the law and commit their crime. When you pass a gun law, you're telling the law abiding population that they can no longer do something. As I've been saying this entire time, criminals are going to continue to do it, regardless of how strict the laws are. Why do you think that making something law will fix all of our problems? That's a very naive way to think. "Let's pass another law and everything will be good to go".

Hystery has already made a few of the points that I would have made in response to this, so I'll refer to his posts to spare space on this long post.

1 hour ago, TheDivineHustle said:

The bar staff could have guns. Club security could have the guns. Not every single person that goes to a club or a bar is there to get smashed or break dance on the middle of the dance floor. I don't know what the specific circumstances surrounding the permitting of guns into a club or bar would be. It depends on the bar, the clientele, and the area, the policy of that particular property, existing laws in the area, you can't just set a generic procedure.

Someone there did have a gun and killed the shooter, but only after 50 people were killed. Does that not prove that armed security is an ineffective solution? And is a small nightclub with deafening music, strobe lights, and hundreds of patrons really the kind of environment you want a shootout to occur in? Again, life is not as simple as "shoot the bad guys". Unless the guard was a skilled marksman, its almost likely that some of the casualties and wounded were struck by the guard's bullets.

1 hour ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Yes they do commit their crimes in Chicago because no one has guns there. When a criminal wants something, he intends on getting it. He doesn't want to shoot people to get that cash register from the 7/11. He doesn't want to shoot the person who's car he's trying to jack. He doesn't want to shoot the owners of the home he just broke in to. He wants to get in, grab the valuables, get out, and get away. Since people can't legally possess firearms in Chicago, this puts the criminal at an advantage. He doesn't need to worry about getting shot in the back when he turns and runs with a stolen wallet. He doesn't need to worry about the homeowner coming downstairs with an assault rifle and spraying him against the wall. He doesn't need to worry about the person who's car he's trying to steal pulling a gun on them. He can commit his crime, grab what he wants, and roll out. Not a fear in the world, not a worry at all.

You've made two points that contradict each other:

"Criminals do their crimes in Chicago because no one has guns, they don't want to shoot their victims, and they don't have to because no one has guns."

"Chicago has a lot of shootings and homicides"

If committing crime in Chicago is so easy, whats up with all the deadly shootings that you referenced before? Lets break it down point by point, so I can show you my argument in its full form. I will use Orlando as an example to stay on topic.

Problem: Omar Mateen legally buys guns in Florida, even as an FBI terror suspect

Solution: Stricter gun laws in Florida, with an emphasis on federal background checks in coordination with the FBI

Problem: Omar Mateen travels to Georgia to buy a gun, since he can't get one in Florida

Solution: Apply same improvements as done in Florida, and to every state across the country

The goal, in my opinion, should be to make it as hard as possible for someone like Omar Mateen to get any kind of gun. Often times pro-gun people say things like "if they don't get there guns here, they'll get them over there" as if that is the end of the debate. But that logic ignores any possibility for preventing or limiting these attacks by making it harder to get guns. Maybe Omar Mateen can't get a gun legally anywhere, so he tries to get one illegally and gets himself arrested. Maybe in his lengthened search for firepower, he's flagged again by the FBI and is charged with conspiracy charges. Or maybe he can't get a gun, so he tries to build a bomb and accidentally blows himself up in his garage. Or his suicide vest doesn't work and he's tackled by his would-be victims. The liberal solution is to make life harder for people like Omar Mateen.

2 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

There's always motive to crime. Whether the motive is to gain valuables, to spread fear, or because you're bored. The idea that someone would commit crime in Chicago simply because they live in Chicago doesn't make any sense, and I've never heard anyone say that. Of course they're going to commit crime where they live. A mugger isn't going to fly from Los Angeles to London to mug someone in a back alley. He's going to walk up the street and see what he can do right in the area. That doesn't necessarily mean that that's his motive to committing the crime. It can easily just be the simple fact that it's convenient and common sense to commit crime in his local area.

Exactly. In the case of Chicago, there are a lot of gangs that deal with privately sold/blackmarket guns and drugs. The liberal solution to that problem is to cut the supply of guns to criminals through legislation, NOT to punish or infringe on responsible gun owners with no criminal history, mental illness, or tendency for violence. The clarity of that message is often lost through debate, just wanted to reiterate.

1 hour ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I could easily disspell that statement, just take a look at Switzerland. According to research, men between the ages of 20 and 34 are conscripted into the militia and undergo militaristic weapons training. Weapons are to remain at homes in Switzerland, and there are more assault rifles in the country than any other type of firearm. There are over 400,000 assault rifles in Switzerland yet it has the lowest crime rate in the world. About 45.7 of every 100 people own a gun in Switzerland. In 2014, Switzerland had the lowest murder rate for 33 years, 0.49 of every 100,000 population. 

The numbers just don't add up to what you're saying. So I'll say again, guns aren't the problem. People are the problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

I'm not sure that "look at this European country" is the road you want to go down...

32 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

Hystery has already made a few of the points that I would have made in response to this, so I'll refer to his posts to spare space on this long post.

Someone there did have a gun and killed the shooter, but only after 50 people were killed. Does that not prove that armed security is an ineffective solution? And is a small nightclub with deafening music, strobe lights, and hundreds of patrons really the kind of environment you want a shootout to occur in? Again, life is not as simple as "shoot the bad guys". Unless the guard was a skilled marksman, its almost likely that some of the casualties and wounded were struck by the guard's bullets.

You've made two points that contradict each other:

"Criminals do their crimes in Chicago because no one has guns, they don't want to shoot their victims, and they don't have to because no one has guns."

"Chicago has a lot of shootings and homicides"

If committing crime in Chicago is so easy, whats up with all the deadly shootings that you referenced before? Lets break it down point by point, so I can show you my argument in its full form. I will use Orlando as an example to stay on topic.

Problem: Omar Mateen legally buys guns in Florida, even as an FBI terror suspect

Solution: Stricter gun laws in Florida, with an emphasis on federal background checks in coordination with the FBI

Problem: Omar Mateen travels to Georgia to buy a gun, since he can't get one in Florida

Solution: Apply same improvements as done in Florida, and to every state across the country

The goal, in my opinion, should be to make it as hard as possible for someone like Omar Mateen to get any kind of gun. Often times pro-gun people say things like "if they don't get there guns here, they'll get them over there" as if that is the end of the debate. But that logic ignores any possibility for preventing or limiting these attacks by making it harder to get guns. Maybe Omar Mateen can't get a gun legally anywhere, so he tries to get one illegally and gets himself arrested. Maybe in his lengthened search for firepower, he's flagged again by the FBI and is charged with conspiracy charges. Or maybe he can't get a gun, so he tries to build a bomb and accidentally blows himself up in his garage. Or his suicide vest doesn't work and he's tackled by his would-be victims. The liberal solution is to make life harder for people like Omar Mateen.

Exactly. In the case of Chicago, there are a lot of gangs that deal with privately sold/blackmarket guns and drugs. The liberal solution to that problem is to cut the supply of guns to criminals through legislation, NOT to punish or infringe on responsible gun owners with no criminal history, mental illness, or tendency for violence. The clarity of that message is often lost through debate, just wanted to reiterate.

When I read the various news articles earlier, they all stated that the gunman was killed when police stormed the building with a vehicle and got into an engagement with him. The officer inside did not kill the shooter, according to the news articles. Even if the officer on the inside did kill the shooter and the news articles are incorrect, that only further justifies what I'm saying. One armed guard was able to stop the shooter at 50 deaths (Going by what you said), so how many deaths could have been prevented if there was more than one guard? What if there were armed law abiding citizens alongside the guard, or armed staff? The number of deaths would drastically decrease while the number of armed citizens increase. It's a very simple concept to grasp.

Chicago has a lot of shootings and homicides because of the gang violence. The gangs are the ones with the guns, and they fight each other while terrorizing the citizens of the City. These gangs slaughter each other like sheep, and innocent people are caught in the crossfire. Also, you can't just pass a generic gun law and expect it to work 100% flawlessly throughout the entire nation. "Oh, well we've passed this gun law in the city of Chicago so let's pass it over in rural Alabama". It's really not that simple and people keep trying to take the easy route in an attempt to stop shootings, banning guns and restricting access, which is illegal in itself.

Banning guns, granted, could decrease the crime. It's not a 100% guarantee that it would decrease the crime but even if it did, it wouldn't decrease it at a significant enough level to make any notable difference in the amount of shootings that happen. Guns can be smuggled in to the country, and that's what people will do, just as they smuggle Marijuana and other substances in since they're banned. Then we're really done for as a country, because NOBODY will have guns but those that smuggle them, and law abiding citizens aren't going to smuggle them in.

You are going by a "if this happens, then this could happen" base when you give these examples of the shooter failing in his plot due to the restriction of a gun. If he's not able to obtain a gun legally, then he will get one illegally. It's as simple as that. If you really want a gun in America, you'll be able to get one. Whether it's legal or not.

Right, but what the right-wing is trying to say is that writing something down on a sheet of paper doesn't mean that things will change. Just because you tell people that they can't have a gun or a certain type of gun doesn't mean that the shootings will stop. Why do you continue to target the gun and not the person holding the gun?

People like to compare the United States to countries that have strict gun laws and ignorantly bicker, "Oh hey, look. We have strict laws so if you do the same thing as we did you'll have a low crime rate like us". Well, I just point to Switzerland, a nation with loose gun laws, and say "Then explain them"?

33 minutes ago, Illusionyary said:

A valid reason is required to own a firearm, and "personal defense" is not one of them.

I'd partially disagree with that statement. There are parts of the United States where police can take up to an hour to respond when called, and only one unit will show up when they finally arrive. If the people in those areas don't have guns to defend themselves, then they're practically screwed. The police aren't always a reliable protection.

I'm heading to bed, I'll respond to any arguments tomorrow afternoon. Have a great night folks!

Edited June 13, 20169 yr by TheDivineHustle
Small changes at the bottom posts.

38 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

When I read the various news articles earlier, they all stated that the gunman was killed when police stormed the building with a vehicle and got into an engagement with him. The officer inside did not kill the shooter, according to the news articles. Even if the officer on the inside did kill the shooter and the news articles are incorrect, that only further justifies what I'm saying. One armed guard was able to stop the shooter at 50 deaths (Going by what you said), so how many deaths could have been prevented if there was more than one guard? What if there were armed law abiding citizens alongside the guard, or armed staff? The number of deaths would drastically decrease while the number of armed citizens increase. It's a very simple concept to grasp.

We'll never know. Just as we'll never know how many people would've survived if he couldn't get his hands on those guns. But in the grand scheme of things, the risks of arming that many business owners across the country far outweigh the likelihood of one of these attacks.

38 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Chicago has a lot of shootings and homicides because of the gang violence. The gangs are the ones with the guns, and they fight each other while terrorizing the citizens of the City. These gangs slaughter each other like sheep, and innocent people are caught in the crossfire. Also, you can't just pass a generic gun law and expect it to work 100% flawlessly throughout the entire nation. "Oh, well we've passed this gun law in the city of Chicago so let's pass it over in rural Alabama". It's really not that simple and people keep trying to take the easy route in an attempt to stop shootings, banning guns and restricting access, which is illegal in itself.

It is actually that simple. The federal government is perfectly capable of implementing improved systems for federalized background checks on all legal gun sales, they just haven't because of gun manufacturer's influence on our democracy.

38 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Banning guns, granted, could decrease the crime. It's not a 100% guarantee that it would decrease the crime but even if it did, it wouldn't decrease it at a significant enough level to make any notable difference in the amount of shootings that happen. Guns can be smuggled in to the country, and that's what people will do, just as they smuggle Marijuana and other substances in since they're banned. Then we're really done for as a country, because NOBODY will have guns but those that smuggle them, and law abiding citizens aren't going to smuggle them in.

I haven't suggested banning guns, or even implied it. But if laws made it tougher for criminals to buy guns in the country, would a certain number of them find them being sold by foreign smugglers? Maybe. But imagine how hard that would be, and how expensive and dangerous it would become for them. 

 

38 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

You are going by a "if this happens, then this could happen" base when you give these examples of the shooter failing in his plot due to the restriction of a gun. If he's not able to obtain a gun legally, then he will get one illegally. It's as simple as that. If you really want a gun in America, you'll be able to get one. Whether it's legal or not.

Right, but what the right-wing is trying to say is that writing something down on a sheet of paper doesn't mean that things will change. Just because you tell people that they can't have a gun or a certain type of gun doesn't mean that the shootings will stop. Why do you continue to target the gun and not the person holding the gun?

People like to compare the United States to countries that have strict gun laws and ignorantly bicker, "Oh hey, look. We have strict laws so if you do the same thing as we did you'll have a low crime rate like us". Well, I just point to Switzerland, a nation with loose gun laws, and say "Then explain them"?

At the risk of sounding insulting, I'm not sure that you understand how laws work. Its not just "writing something down on a sheet of paper". Laws can drastically effect the way gun markets work in the country.They work because manufacturers, retailers, and law abiding citizens follow them. And when they do, they narrow avenues through which criminals get their guns. You also seem very confident in the prevalence of illegal guns, but have you ever thought about where they come from (apart from the few that are smuggled in)? Glock makes a gun legally at a factory, and sells it to a retailer. That retailer sells it to a person. If that person is a criminal, that criminal now has a gun. That gun can be sold privately hundreds of times, and now becomes an "illegal gun". But if that gun store sold it to a law-abiding citizen, that gun could be stolen. Boom, illegal gun. If its not stolen, that law abiding citizen (in a state like Florida for example) could simply sell it to someone else. Citizens can't exactly do background checks, so a certain number of those buyers will be criminals, and a certain number of them will sell it to criminals. Right now, we have hundreds of millions of guns flowing through circulation. Would tougher laws reduce the flow of guns that eventually end up in the hands of criminals? Absolutely. Guns come from somewhere, they don't just magically appear in the hands of criminals.

And I'm all for increasing mental health care, if that's what you mean by "Why do you continue to target the gun and not the person holding the gun?". 

And OK, lets say President Obama decides that all young men are FORCED to enlist for military service, but they get to keep their rifle afterwards (or however it works in Switzerland). You really think that goes over well? Or does the entire right wing FREAK out about King Obama sending all our kids to war? I think I know how that ends.

And Switzerland's program wouldn't work here because of our selective service laws. If you then put a rifle in the home of that percentage of Americans, it ends VERY badly. You've now introduced hundreds of millions of high powered rifles into a population that is untrained and probably doesn't even want the rifle. Many people would get killed. Bad idea all around.

Edited June 13, 20169 yr by Riley24

1 hour ago, Illusionyary said:

Because the gunmen in question was a person of interest to federal agencies who had links to extremists groups, yet was still able to purchase firearms legally. Do you seriously not see the issue with this? The United States seemingly has a mass shooting every week yet no other civilized country has these problems. Why is this? Because they have gun laws. Australia had no restrictions on firearms up until the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, which resulted in the banishment of all fully automatic weapons and most rifles. A valid reason is required to own a firearm, and "personal defense" is not one of them.

I don't believe the United States should completely banish all firearms, however nation wide restrictions and regulations NEED to be implemented along with the banishment of fully automatic weapons. Nobody outside of military and/or law enforcement should have access to a fully automatic assault rifle, especially not known criminals and those tied to extremist terrorist groups.

The issue doesn't lie with the firearm in question, but rather the fact that this guy managed to not be apprehended PERIOD. Let's say hypothetically that America has similar gun laws to that of England, where he was unable to purchase an assault rifle for any reason whatsoever. We're talking about someone who had every intent to slaughter people in the name of whatever mumbo jumbo he believes in, therefore the next weapon of choice would of more than likely be a bomb, whether it was a suicide bombing or planted is neither here nor there - this is assuming he doesn't gain access to an ILLEGAL firearm, which would be a higher probability than a bomb, home made or not. 

 

The common denominator here isn't that this person is just some average American hick with a grudge against X, Y, or Z, it's someone who is mentally hell-bent on executing a deed based on faith or a radical idea that everyone is against Muslim. This is a terrorist attack, not just a mass-shooting there is a significant difference. People need to stop alluding to the idea that terrorists are going to abide by gun laws, it's nonsensical. I know this is a sore spot but gun laws in France didn't stop those terrorist attacks, there is a reason as to why they are called extremists. 

 

Regardless of whether or not America had gun laws in place would not have stopped this guy from massacring or doing something else, he had every intention of causing pain and suffering and that is typically the agenda for terrorists. What is infuriating is that the FBI knew he had ties with extremist groups and did absolutely nothing, and that is the real problem, not guns, bombs, planes, whatever object of use that a terrorist decides to use to cause destruction. 

 

Lastly, don't get me wrong something needs to change in relation to firearms but they are not the sole reason this happens, as it stands it's the scapegoat. What needs to happen is stricter screening needs to take place and for the love of god, when someone has ties to an extremist group or has 'terrorist' like tendencies, apprehend them, don't wait for the blood-shed. 

Edited June 13, 20169 yr by Solidefiance

47 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I'd partially disagree with that statement. There are parts of the United States where police can take up to an hour to respond when called, and only one unit will show up when they finally arrive. If the people in those areas don't have guns to defend themselves, then they're practically screwed. The police aren't always a reliable protection.

I'm heading to bed, I'll respond to any arguments tomorrow afternoon. Have a great night folks!

I meant in Australia. Claiming "personal defense" here doesn't qualify you for ownership of a firearm like it can in the US. It's not a valid reason.

.

Edited June 14, 20169 yr by Prophet

16 minutes ago, Prophet said:

Just been trailing along on the discussion. Find this so... Awkward. I mean, why else would one law abiding citizen want a firearm? Lol

People here generally DON'T want firearms to begin with. There's no gun culture in Australia after the aforementioned Port Arthur massacre. We don't feel "safer" with them and we want nothing to do with them. Obviously we still have shooting ranges and stuff but the only civilians who legally own firearms are farmers.

Edited June 13, 20169 yr by Illusionyary