The Guns thread

[Supernova]

But that only works if you are hyper vigilant 24/7, we have people getting killed in clubs and movie theatres, if I am dancing in a club or watching a movie, it could be easy if someone has the intent to shoot to succeed, even if I had a gun, people are not going to these places expecting a shoot out and are distract by the purpose of these entertainment venues. Just giving everyone guns doesn't solve the mass shooting problem.

Besides what if there are people with concealed weapons who don't know what they are doing on the scene this good guy with a gun idea is horribly naive.

Also answer me this, why do other Western countries have far less mass shootings then the US?

Does south america and canada have these issues? I honestly have no idea

 

[marcvader]

I certainly don't want a drunk or hothead with a gun anywhere near me. This idea of letting anyone carry is ridiculous. It's bad enough with drunk drivers to deal with.

 

[The Overlord]

Does south america and canada have these issues? I honestly have no idea

I live in Canada and yes we have far fewer mass shootings then in the US. Have there been mass shootings in Canada, sure, but not nearly as many as the US.

 

[Donner]

I live in Canada as well and no, we don't have these issues. People aren't paranoid enough up here to buy a gun for protection. Hell, a lot of us don't even lock our front doors. The people who own guns use them for hunting.

South America has issues with violence in general and a lot of that is based around the economy, cartels, history, etc. Brazil is a cluster**** right now.

 

[Matt Mortem]

I posted it in the Trump thread and I'll post it here: the NRA is a terrorist organization. By lobbying congress to make assault weapons easier for terrorists to purchase legally they are directly contributing to the climate of fear and terror that grips this nation. Bottom line is mass carnage is good for gun manufacturers. Make the guns easy to buy, people die, scared people buy more guns.

 

[regwec]

Answers in blue.

Here's what I don't understand about those who want to pass greater gun restrictions. I personally a. don't like guns b. own guns but I don't see that the answer is to pass huge gun laws restricting access to guns.

1. What do you do with the guns already out in circulation? Let's say you make semi-automatics illegal how are you going to round up all these guns and how are people going to react if the answer is to send law enforcement out to collect these guns?

I suggest something akin to compulsory purchase as used where land is required for civic planning. This would be expensive, but equitable.

The confiscated toys could then be decommissioned or, where appropriate, sent where they might do some good: the Peshmerga may be relied upon to turn them on America's real enemies.

2. Why would a ban on certain types of guns be more efficient than a ban on certain types of drugs? Drugs are consumed and then have to be repurchased while I already mentioned that guns are already in circulation which makes it seem like this would be an even more difficult task than the War on Drugs.

Illegal narcotics are in many cases addictive and, being illegal, are harder to trace than guns. Furthermore, their supply is undertaken by organised criminals highly accustomed to flouting the law. The same lack of cooperation from law abiding citizens who are being offered compensation cannot be assumed. Even if it could, the interruption of the further supply and proliferation of new guns would nevertheless be a good start.

3. Most of the mass shootings we see in data are gang related (We just see the non-gang related ones on the news). There have been 3 non-gang related mass shootings this year. 133 gang related mass shootings. If most of the mass shootings are gang related, I highly doubt they are going to follow the new laws or that it would restrict their access to guns. All it would do is create a larger black market for guns that would help more money flow to gangs.

As above, it cannot be assumed that law abiding citizens are "addicted" to guns in the same way as drug addicts are to narcotics, nor is there reason to suppose they would seek the same recourse to illegal supply.

The fact that many people are shot dead in gang conflicts is no good reason not to stem the tide of people shot dead outside gang conflicts, in my opinion.

 

[Supernova]

I certainly don't want a drunk or hothead with a gun anywhere near me. This idea of letting anyone carry is ridiculous. It's bad enough with drunk drivers to deal with.

Same feelings, heck an nfl player just himself in the leg by accident recently.

 

[summerteeth]

Answers in blue.

a. Do you know how many Clive Bundy situations you will have on your hands if you try to do that? I'm no means defending that idiot, but I'm just saying that things could get really ugly fast.

b. This may be true for narcotics but doesn't explain less addictive drugs like marijuana or even alcohol during prohibition (surely not everyone who enjoys a drink is an alcoholic). These black markets are created by consumer demand. They enrich criminals. Organized criminals will fill that demand like they do with drugs.

c. Nobody is saying they are addicted to guns just that there is a high demand for guns. There are many products that are purchased illegally because of demand not just because of its addictive properties see prostitution as an example or copper.

My point was that if most of the mass shootings are gang members who operate outside the law, a law banning guns isn't going to solve the majority of mass shootings. Again, a lot of this money from a larger gun black market (which already exists) will flow to the hands of gangs. Which will give them larger influence in their communities.

 

[regwec]

Your post is written from the perspective of someone who is willing to become a criminal in order to sate their desire to own guns. I find it improbable that many Americans are like that, but perhaps you know better.

 

[summerteeth]

Your post is written from the perspective of someone who is willing to become a criminal in order to sate their desire to own guns. I find it improbable that many Americans are like that, but perhaps you know better.

I'm not. I don't own any guns. I don't even like guns. How many people "have been willing to become a criminal to smoke marijuana?" I suppose nearly every college student. How many "have been willing to become criminals to drink alcohol before they were 21?" They've proven time and time again that Americans are like that. Whether you look at Prohibition, drug laws, etc.

Also ignoring that the bulk of these mass shootings are coming from people who are already criminals or involved in criminal activity so they've already proven that they are willing to become criminals.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

There was an active shooter taking hostages in a Wal-Mart in Amarillo today. Reports are the shooter was killed, and no hostages were hurt.

 

[Boom]

If I was ever interested in purchasing a gun (which I may once I'm a homeowner), I'm more than willing to go through whatever wait periods and background checks the government would like to conduct. I have nothing to hide, so what's it matter to me if it takes a while longer to obtain one?

 

[Matt Mortem]

If I was ever interested in purchasing a gun (which I may once I'm a homeowner), I'm more than willing to go through whatever wait periods and background checks the government would like to conduct. I have nothing to hide, so what's it matter to me if it takes a while longer to obtain one?

I think most gun owners agree. Save for a few fringe gun nuts I don't know that anyone reasonable person would disagree with a few safety measures designed to save lives.

 

[Sawyer]

 

[Matt Mortem]

The only way that the good guy with a gun stopping the bad guy with the gun scenario works out is if ALL Americans are on constant watch for a potential shooter. That's called a ****ing warzone and I'll be goddamned if I'm living in a warzone.

 

[Sawyer]

Nothing would surprise me less than that being the NRA's exact endgame.

 

[Matt Mortem]

I'm sure it is the NRA endgame. Sales always surge after shootings. Mass carnage is great for business and the NRA is in the business of death.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I'm not. I don't own any guns. I don't even like guns. How many people "have been willing to become a criminal to smoke marijuana?" I suppose nearly every college student. How many "have been willing to become criminals to drink alcohol before they were 21?" They've proven time and time again that Americans are like that. Whether you look at Prohibition, drug laws, etc.

Also ignoring that the bulk of these mass shootings are coming from people who are already criminals or involved in criminal activity so they've already proven that they are willing to become criminals.

The bulk of mass shootings are not done by criminals, almost all of the recent ones were done by "law-abiding" citizens who purchased their weapons legally. Get your facts straight.

 

[samsnee]

I'm surprised the NRA isn't secretly funding Clinton's campaign. They always sell more guns when a Democrat is in office because they play up the "they will take away your guns" line.

 

[Tilapia]

Here's what I don't understand about those who want to pass greater gun restrictions. I personally a. don't like guns b. own guns but I don't see that the answer is to pass huge gun laws restricting access to guns.

1. What do you do with the guns already out in circulation? Let's say you make semi-automatics illegal how are you going to round up all these guns and how are people going to react if the answer is to send law enforcement out to collect these guns?

2. Why would a ban on certain types of guns be more efficient than a ban on certain types of drugs? Drugs are consumed and then have to be repurchased while I already mentioned that guns are already in circulation which makes it seem like this would be an even more difficult task than the War on Drugs.

3. Most of the mass shootings we see in data are gang related (We just see the non-gang related ones on the news). There have been 3 non-gang related mass shootings this year. 133 gang related mass shootings. If most of the mass shootings are gang related, I highly doubt they are going to follow the new laws or that it would restrict their access to guns. All it would do is create a larger black market for guns that would help more money flow to gangs.

It's because people would rather have organized crime where there are at least business motivations for selling weapons meant for shooting and killing people, meaning less random, indiscriminate attacks, which would make people feel "safer".

The only logical conclusion off that is that the enterprise now becomes exponentially profitable for illegal sellers. That in turn creates something that is sustainable.

We need better screening, but banning certain weapons is not the answer. I think the government could do a gun buy back to decommission some units, if that's what the tax payers want. Then we can move to a trackwise system where owners of certain weapons have to be registered with an agency where the weapon in question has to be accounted for. Again, this is going to cost tax payers a lot of money. Don't expect the gun lobby to pay for it.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

The bulk of mass shootings are not done by criminals, almost all of the recent ones were done by "law-abiding" citizens who purchased their weapons legally. Get your facts straight.

I guess that depends on what who's definition of "mass shooting" you want to use. If you go by the FBI's definition, then the relatively few "mass shootings" they list are done by criminals. But if you go by the Washington Post or any other groups who track them, then a lot of gang shootings and past criminals are included.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I honestly believed that after Sandy Hook happened and nothing changed, that there would never be a change on this issue.

But the reaction to this latest bloodbath makes me cautiously optimistic.

The usual NRA insensitivity and disingenuous Republican calls for prayer and talk of how it's a mental health issue seem to have been met with unusual anger from the sane people in this country.

 

[summerteeth]

The bulk of mass shootings are not done by criminals, almost all of the recent ones were done by "law-abiding" citizens who purchased their weapons legally. Get your facts straight.

I do. The Federal Government defines a mass shooting as more than 3 people shot. That's the legal definition. Like I said before most are done by criminals or those involved in criminal activity i.e. in gangs.

 

[Matt Mortem]

I honestly believed that after Sandy Hook happened and nothing changed, that there would never be a change on this issue.

But the reaction to this latest bloodbath makes me cautiously optimistic.

The usual NRA insensitivity and disingenuous Republican calls for prayer and talk of how it's a mental health issue seem to have been met with unusual anger from the sane people in this country.

I agree. I was honestly shocked that nothing happened after Sandy Hook. If dead children wouldn't motivate lawmakers then nothing will. Hopefully this is the straw that breaks the camels back. I doubt it though. This is playing out the same way it always does. Calls for prayers and nothing more. The bible itself says that faith isn't good enough without action. Though, if the GOP and NRA were actual Christians they'd have done something about this problem a long ass time ago.

 

[Donner]

I'm sure it is the NRA endgame. Sales always surge after shootings. Mass carnage is great for business and the NRA is in the business of death.

Sounds like Lord of War.