America's Gun Violence

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution?  you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?

I didn't suggest that it was.
I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.

Have you never heard of a controlled burn?
Have you ever been in a fist fight? 
Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.

I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.

But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle?  no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired?  Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.

Sounds like a great idea for 10-20 years down the road...

my2hands said:

If more guns was the answer America would be the safest place in the world

It's shocking how well years of propaganda works, they have people actually believing this shit. 

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution?  you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?

I didn't suggest that it was.
I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.

Have you never heard of a controlled burn?
Have you ever been in a fist fight? 
Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.

I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.

But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle?  no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired?  Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.

Sounds like a great idea for 10-20 years down the road...

I'll repeat this for about the FOURTH time. There was an assault weapons ban that WORKED from 1994-2004.

Which expired...The political landscape and technology is completely different than when Clinton implemented this. 
It may happen, but not as easily as it did in 1994.

The political landscape can change in ONE voting cycle. What are you not picking up here?

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution?  you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?

I didn't suggest that it was.
I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.

Have you never heard of a controlled burn?
Have you ever been in a fist fight? 
Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.

I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.

But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle?  no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired?  Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.

Sounds like a great idea for 10-20 years down the road...

I'll repeat this for about the FOURTH time. There was an assault weapons ban that WORKED from 1994-2004.

Which expired...The political landscape and technology is completely different than when Clinton implemented this. 
It may happen, but not as easily as it did in 1994.

The political landscape can change in ONE voting cycle. What are you not picking up here?

Must you be so condescending in every post?  Of course it could change in one voting cycle.  Look at the way it changed in the last.  I do not see the country becoming more bipartisan right now though, do you?  I still see hardcore republicans and hardcore democrats being bound by lobbying groups.  Again, how are you going to sway the minds of hardcore voting republicans who do not support gun control?  I guess you could try calling them deplorables and shaming them, but is that really going to work?  Maybe a trade, abortion for gun control?  I, currently, have no realistic political strategies in mind that will result in the banning of “assault weapons” over at least the next 2 years...You cannot just tell people “don’t vote for gun nuts” and see that as a failsafe strategy...or do you?

Dude....your solution is "more guns." Which sounds more logical: voting in responsible people who realize we need more gun control....or, MORE GUNS!!? Think about your argument here. What if back in the 60's, instead of working hard and galvanizing support for the Civil Rights Act, people just threw their hands up in the air and said "Fuck this shit! This is too hard! We're never gonna convince rural, southern Americans that this makes sense---let's just not let black people vote again!"

Obviously this isn't going to happen overnight. It starts by accepting that there is a problem and actively advocating for change like these kids in Florida are doing right now. And then enough people have to make their voices heard in voting booths. And again, gun owners who don't want to change gun laws are in the MINORITY. They are a loud and vociferous minority but they still are in the MINORITY.

mattsl1983 said:

The Juggler said:

mattsl1983 said:

No Coder said:

Okay, I have not read this whole discussion, but have read most of the last few weeks pages, so forgive me if I've missed something that has already been discussed.
As an outsider from Australia, I am certainly not 100% all over the specifics of the laws etc for gun ownership and purchasing, but do have some knowledge. I have been to the USA one multiple occasions for work and also worked alongside many Americans on deployments. I served 13 years in the Australian Airforce and have deployed to many locations and environments for months at a time with multiple of our Allied countries. So I have been around and handled weapons and also fully aware of the damage they can cause.

I really struggle to see why any person requires any semi automatic weapon. I have no issue with people wanting to hunt, target shoot etc, but why does anyone need a semi automatic???

Why can't the government put a ban on all of these weapons and put a buy back scheme in place for the ones already in use? Yes, there will still be ones in existence and the criminals will always find ways around things. But it hasn't been a criminal shooting up schools. And yes, it may cost the Gov a lot of money in the buy back scheme, so what? How much money is wasted by any government on other bullshit. 
I know from reading forums and Fbook, that this will be massively unpopular with some, who will quote rights etc, but when does children's lives start to outweigh their outdated rights? Government's are in place to make these decisions for the betterment of it's people and sometimes tough decisions need to be made

Commentators point to multiple other countries (including mine) that have changed laws or simply have never allowed this sort of weapon's access to civillians, but people still want to say that it won't work in the USA or that we are different in the USA. Yes, it is different, your schools are getting shot up a lot more regularly than ANYWHERE else in the Western world

I know the Government (and not just this current one) has been owned by the NRA for a LONG time, so this will most likely never happen, but hopefully these children that are not standing up and saying NOW is the time to talk and take action will be heard. It may take time, but that doesn't mean you don't start NOW

The use of “need” and specifically always going after the horrible “ar15” are not very good talking points when it comes to gun control.  

I have never once heard anyone say they need an ar15.

If your argument is for stricter gun control, you should look at the statistics and go after handguns because more people are killed by handguns a year than any other gun.  Riffles, including the AR15, account for 3 percent of murders by firearms.  To me, always specifically saying the AR15 comes across as a knee jerk reaction.

I think most people are in favor of better regulations, the issue is how.  I hear the phrase “common sense” thrown out a lot.  What is common sense regulation though?  

I personally think there are more issues that tend to be ignored than just gun regulation.  We’ve had guns since the start.  Why all of a sudden does it appear that we are having more and more of these types of shootings?  Instead of just focusing on guns and trying to control what we think we can control, we need to put some focus and energy into looking at ourselves and our culture and ask why now.  What’s different?  Why does it seem more and more people just don’t value life anymore?  We can pass laws and ban all guns.  But just like drugs, they won’t magically disappear once they are illegal.

Lets just say the AR15 becomes illegal, what’s the solution once a shooting happens involving one?  Because I’m pretty sure if someone has it in their mind that they are going to kill a group of people, they won’t say “well damn, I was going to use this AR15, but I don’t want to break any laws.”  

Jeez. It's almost like people forget we had an assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004. Other than Columbine, can you think of any other mass shootings in that time frame of the top of your head? Neither can I. Now....can you think of any since that expired and can you name what most of them have in common?

NOBODY who wants these guns banned are not ONLY looking to ban these guns and do NOTHING else.
OF COURSE we need to change our culture. 
OF COURSE our schools need better security.
OF COURSE we need universal and more stringent background checks.

But it's COMMON SENSE to also try to restrict the kinds of guns that make shootings like these easier for people.

The rest of the world is laughing at us. Thank God for these kids...

You use the phrase common sense.  Please explain this simple common sense idea that is going to work so well.

Can you name any mass shootings off the top of your head before 1994?  The point you tried to make works both for you and against you.

mattsl1983 said:

The Juggler said:

mattsl1983 said:

No Coder said:

Okay, I have not read this whole discussion, but have read most of the last few weeks pages, so forgive me if I've missed something that has already been discussed.
As an outsider from Australia, I am certainly not 100% all over the specifics of the laws etc for gun ownership and purchasing, but do have some knowledge. I have been to the USA one multiple occasions for work and also worked alongside many Americans on deployments. I served 13 years in the Australian Airforce and have deployed to many locations and environments for months at a time with multiple of our Allied countries. So I have been around and handled weapons and also fully aware of the damage they can cause.

I really struggle to see why any person requires any semi automatic weapon. I have no issue with people wanting to hunt, target shoot etc, but why does anyone need a semi automatic???

Why can't the government put a ban on all of these weapons and put a buy back scheme in place for the ones already in use? Yes, there will still be ones in existence and the criminals will always find ways around things. But it hasn't been a criminal shooting up schools. And yes, it may cost the Gov a lot of money in the buy back scheme, so what? How much money is wasted by any government on other bullshit. 
I know from reading forums and Fbook, that this will be massively unpopular with some, who will quote rights etc, but when does children's lives start to outweigh their outdated rights? Government's are in place to make these decisions for the betterment of it's people and sometimes tough decisions need to be made

Commentators point to multiple other countries (including mine) that have changed laws or simply have never allowed this sort of weapon's access to civillians, but people still want to say that it won't work in the USA or that we are different in the USA. Yes, it is different, your schools are getting shot up a lot more regularly than ANYWHERE else in the Western world

I know the Government (and not just this current one) has been owned by the NRA for a LONG time, so this will most likely never happen, but hopefully these children that are not standing up and saying NOW is the time to talk and take action will be heard. It may take time, but that doesn't mean you don't start NOW

The use of “need” and specifically always going after the horrible “ar15” are not very good talking points when it comes to gun control.  

I have never once heard anyone say they need an ar15.

If your argument is for stricter gun control, you should look at the statistics and go after handguns because more people are killed by handguns a year than any other gun.  Riffles, including the AR15, account for 3 percent of murders by firearms.  To me, always specifically saying the AR15 comes across as a knee jerk reaction.

I think most people are in favor of better regulations, the issue is how.  I hear the phrase “common sense” thrown out a lot.  What is common sense regulation though?  

I personally think there are more issues that tend to be ignored than just gun regulation.  We’ve had guns since the start.  Why all of a sudden does it appear that we are having more and more of these types of shootings?  Instead of just focusing on guns and trying to control what we think we can control, we need to put some focus and energy into looking at ourselves and our culture and ask why now.  What’s different?  Why does it seem more and more people just don’t value life anymore?  We can pass laws and ban all guns.  But just like drugs, they won’t magically disappear once they are illegal.

Lets just say the AR15 becomes illegal, what’s the solution once a shooting happens involving one?  Because I’m pretty sure if someone has it in their mind that they are going to kill a group of people, they won’t say “well damn, I was going to use this AR15, but I don’t want to break any laws.”  

Jeez. It's almost like people forget we had an assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004. Other than Columbine, can you think of any other mass shootings in that time frame of the top of your head? Neither can I. Now....can you think of any since that expired and can you name what most of them have in common?

NOBODY who wants these guns banned are not ONLY looking to ban these guns and do NOTHING else.
OF COURSE we need to change our culture. 
OF COURSE our schools need better security.
OF COURSE we need universal and more stringent background checks.

But it's COMMON SENSE to also try to restrict the kinds of guns that make shootings like these easier for people.

The rest of the world is laughing at us. Thank God for these kids...

You use the phrase common sense.  Please explain this simple common sense idea that is going to work so well.

Can you name any mass shootings off the top of your head before 1994?  The point you tried to make works both for you and against you.

rgambs said:

my2hands said:

Mass shootings don't just happen at schools, in case anybody hasn't noticed... but anyway 

teams of armed guards at every school in America? Metal detectors at every entrance? Every doorway to every school secured and guarded?

Great solution LOL... wtf is wrong with this country? It's fucking absurd

How about when they get off the bus? Get let out for the day? The friday night football game? The Tuesday afternoon soccer practice? It's so easy to poke holes in this shirt sighted bullshit it's fucking laughable, if it wasn't so sad

Imagine, just for a second, if America had no guns... what's that look like? Think about that for a second before you swallow down more NRA propaganda convincing you to cling to your AR-15

So what actionable solution do you see as less laughable in a country ruled by Trump that can't even put together a budget.
What amazing feat of bi-partisan legislation are you expecting to go through at any moment?

Imagine America without guns?  WTF is the purpose of that?  There's hundreds of millions of them out there, that's our fucked up reality.  Dreaming of living in America without guns is just that, dreaming. 
We need actions, not dreams.