Study shows gun control would prevent mass shootings

[Ruin]

I'm seriously not trying to be cynical but is there even one example of gun control legislation actually working? Chicago, LA, and Washington DC have the most restrictive gun control laws in the country and have the highest levels of gun violence. Despite being known to the FBI as potential extremists The Orlando and San Bernadino shooters were able to fully comply with the existing gun control laws and purchase firearms.

The list of failures just goes on and on where are the success stories? If a policy fails to produce any discernible positive developments decades after implementation we would call that an utter failure would we not?

 

[autism420]

Why is it dumb to be against the registration of guns and gun owners, when the president in power has expressed that he wants to confiscate guns? What do you think that registry might be used for?

Guns should be taken away from people who do not meet the mental qualifications that would be put in place. If you think anyone with any type of violent mental disability should be able to own a gun, then I feel very sorry for you.

Stop listening to the NRA. They are lying to you.

 

[Shokew]

Guns should be taken away from people who do not meet the mental qualifications that would be put in place. If you think anyone with any type of violent mental disability should be able to own a gun, then I feel very sorry for you.

Stop listening to the NRA. They are lying to you.

I agree with you on one thing - want a gun? Take a test, pass it completely. Anything to stop the NRA from blowing shit like this out of proportion and allowing it to fester on and on and what - fucking - not.

 

[Patchouli]

I don't think gun control would do as much to stop shootings as say the media stops gloryfying the killers.
They killed people, yeah they were sick fucks who ended innocemt peoples lives. But you don't need to obsess over them for a month or two (columbine, sandy hook) it only makes things worse for people on the edge and society in general. For example almost all school shooters were inspired by columbine shootings and the gliry the media bestowed upon it since 1999. Etc.

 

[Shugo]

For example almost all school shooters were inspired by columbine shootings and the gliry the media bestowed upon it

I remember our whole class watched documentaries on Columbine.

 

[Patchouli]

I remember our whole class watched documentaries on Columbine.

What for? I can't imagine them screening a documentary about a fucking school shooting in a school, especially a high school.
We're you in a forensics class?

 

[Shugo]

We're you in a forensics class?

No I don't really remember what class or when.

 

[hitler_dindu_nuffin]

Most gun control arguments have no factual basis.

1. Saying the Second Amendment 'was written in the era of muskets' and therefore doesn't apply to a modern day USA is stupid, because there actually already were semi-automatic rifles at the time the constitution was drafted (Girandoni Air Rifle).
2. Even if you were able to somehow circumvent the Second Amendment and completely ban guns, how do you expect the police force to effectively confiscate over 3 million firearms across a 3,500,000 square mile landmass? You could try a buyback program, but in Australia only about 20% of the firearms ever got turned in through it.
3. Banning guns does not mean citizens and criminals suddenly forgot how firearms work. If German prisoners can make a working zip gun with stuff they found in their prison cell, and Brazilian favela gangs can make semi-auto .50 caliber rifles with basic machining, imagine what a criminal could make in his garage in the US.
4. If more guns = more crime, how come Vermont, a state which has some of the most lax gun laws in the union, is the second least violent state while the District of Columbia, with very heavy gun control measures, is the most?
5. While they are most definitely horrific, mass shootings are simply not as big of an issue as the media makes it out to be. The United States' violence rate does not come from public mass shootings, in fact, deaths from mass shootings make up less than 1 percent of people being killed in the US yearly. The real issue is inner city violence, which gun control advocates simply don't mention because they know that more gun control measures would not stem it.
6. If gun control would lower violence, how come mass shootings are happening almost hourly in Europe right now?

and lastly:

7. SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED

Guns should be taken away from people who do not meet the mental qualifications that would be put in place. If you think anyone with any type of violent mental disability should be able to own a gun, then I feel very sorry for you.

Stop listening to the NRA. They are lying to you.

The NRA does not advocate for mentally ill people to get guns. In fact, they were a primary force in getting the Federal Background Check instituted in the first place.

 

[RepQuest]

Dianne Feinstein is a corrupt, un-American piece of shit who despises the whole concept of there even being a Constitution. The Second Amendment is just one of its parts that she hates.

I am ashamed to have that despicable human being as my senator. Quite a few (non-Californian) Democrats have told me that they absolutely abhor her and pity me for living in California. Not even all that many Californian Democrats seriously like her. The only reason she keeps getting reelected is because she has a D behind her name.

 

[Null]

Most gun control arguments have no factual basis.

Are you related to @Internet War Criminal?

 

[Internet War Criminal]

All my relatives practice good deadlift form, so no

 

[hitler_dindu_nuffin]

All my relatives practice good deadlift form, so no

My deadlift form is on point

I am ashamed to have that despicable human being as my senator. Quite a few (non-Californian) Democrats have told me that they absolutely abhor her and pity me for living in California. Not even all that many Californian Democrats seriously like her. The only reason she keeps getting reelected is because she has a D behind her name.

California is a trainwreck in every single regard.

 

[The Dude]

Most gun control arguments have no factual basis.

1. Saying the Second Amendment 'was written in the era of muskets' and therefore doesn't apply to a modern day USA is stupid, because there actually already were semi-automatic rifles at the time the constitution was drafted (Girandoni Air Rifle).
2. Even if you were able to somehow circumvent the Second Amendment and completely ban guns, how do you expect the police force to effectively confiscate over 3 million firearms across a 3,500,000 square mile landmass? You could try a buyback program, but in Australia only about 20% of the firearms ever got turned in through it.
3. Banning guns does not mean citizens and criminals suddenly forgot how firearms work. If German prisoners can make a working zip gun with stuff they found in their prison cell, and Brazilian favela gangs can make semi-auto .50 caliber rifles with basic machining, imagine what a criminal could make in his garage in the US.
4. If more guns = more crime, how come Vermont, a state which has some of the most lax gun laws in the union, is the second least violent state while the District of Columbia, with very heavy gun control measures, is the most?
5. While they are most definitely horrific, mass shootings are simply not as big of an issue as the media makes it out to be. The United States' violence rate does not come from public mass shootings, in fact, deaths from mass shootings make up less than 1 percent of people being killed in the US yearly. The real issue is inner city violence, which gun control advocates simply don't mention because they know that more gun control measures would not stem it.
6. If gun control would lower violence, how come mass shootings are happening almost hourly in Europe right now?

and lastly:

7. SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED



The NRA does not advocate for mentally ill people to get guns. In fact, they were a primary force in getting the Federal Background Check instituted in the first place.

Actually, there are closer to 500 million firearms privately owned in the United States and about 100 million to 150 million gun owners.

 

[feedtheoctopus]

I'm seriously not trying to be cynical but is there even one example of gun control legislation actually working? Chicago, LA, and Washington DC have the most restrictive gun control laws in the country and have the highest levels of gun violence. Despite being known to the FBI as potential extremists The Orlando and San Bernadino shooters were able to fully comply with the existing gun control laws and purchase firearms.

The list of failures just goes on and on where are the success stories? If a policy fails to produce any discernible positive developments decades after implementation we would call that an utter failure would we not?

New York's doing pretty good.

Anyway, its amazingly easy to get a gun in the US no matter where you are. Its not hard to take guns across state borders. That's the issue with places like Chicago. You can seriously drive out of the city for like, 45 minutes, and find somebody who can sell you a gun. If you go back far enough those guns were purchased legally at some point in the vast majority of cases. It's useless to ban guns in singular cities for that reason. It's not like there's some sort of wall around LA and Chicago or something.

Well, not unless Trump has his way anyway

 

[r00]

Most gun control arguments have no factual basis.
6. If gun control would lower violence, how come mass shootings are happening almost hourly in Europe right now?

Are they? Hourly? where are these mass shootings happening?

Did it really need a study to point out that less guns would probably = less shootings?

I know you americans sure love your guns, and england has never had much of a gun problem, but as far as I know, there has been one mass school shooting in the uk. It was the catalyst for banning all handguns and we haven't had any more. Seems pretty simple. The back and forth arguing about whether or not gun control would "work" is silly. It would, you just don't want to get rid of your noisy symbolic toys.

 

[Shugo]

england has never had much of a gun problem

The back and forth arguing about whether or not gun control would "work" is silly

If England never had a gun problem, how is it even remotely comparable to the USA which has a gun problem?

How can you propose what England did to solve its non-problem to a country where it is an actual problem?

Can you explain how and exactly what class of firearms would be outlawed in the USA and who would enforce the mass confiscation of potentially over 300 million guns?

It's not as simple as "ban guns." People who advocate to "ban guns" usually have an extremely narrow view of what guns are legal, which are not, or the history of gun control in the USA or England. It's not "common sense." It's ignorance.

Also, what about this mass shooting that took place in England around 13 years after it outlawed almost every single handgun?

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

How is gun violence solved in England? What is the empirical measurement for a country with "low gun violence?" When can you finally mark down that "gun violence" is solved, and you're done outlawing more and more firearms?

There are some individual states in the USA with lower overall violent crime rate than some "civilized" European countries that have almost completely outlawed guns. How can you dismiss those as functioning states, with a rate of violence you deem acceptable, and still advocate that we need to ban more guns in the USA overall?

 

[hitler_dindu_nuffin]

I know you americans sure love your guns, and england has never had much of a gun problem, but as far as I know, there has been one mass school shooting in the uk. It was the catalyst for banning all handguns and we haven't had any more. Seems pretty simple. The back and forth arguing about whether or not gun control would "work" is silly. It would, you just don't want to get rid of your noisy symbolic toys.

Britain never had much of a violence problem in the first place. Right now, Britain has an identical murder rate to 1920 (about 1.0 for 100,000 people). Keep in mind, in 1920s Britain, police used to borrow guns off passing citizens to deal with anarchist terrorists, and there were no restrictions on firearms whatsoever. Firearms were banned based purely on emotion, and if they weren't, I seriously doubt Britain's murder rate would be any different.

The United States is a mishmash of cultures meshing together, some better than others, and has a whole different set of issues and ideas about fundamental rights than Britain and Europe. Laws that work for one country may not work for another, especially in the US's case. I've already explained in my original post why banning firearms in the US would change nothing, and I don't feel like typing it all out again. This issue is not as simple as you're making it out to be.

 

[Twinkle2017]

Ya, all the baitbosting and bait threading has created this. Nothing but 1 liners and short paragraphs of bait posting on a serious topic. Really killing all autistic people and even suggesting it is autistic.

I think more than gun control is needed. The US has over 300,000,000 million guns in circulation. That is a gun for every man, woman, and child just about. We have laws that are supposed control gun sales, but they are not implemented and we have special interests that severely reduce how effective these laws are with created loopholes or by hamstringing the people meant to enforce them. More guns means more of a chance of these weapons falling into the hands of those who would intentionally kill others. It is basic economics, more supply means more availability and in some cases less cost for would be killers.

I am still a realist and understand that we have a powerful political lobby that wants guns everywhere all the time. So there is another option, Reinstitutionalization.

It is not popular and it is not pretty, but the US's experiment with Deinstitutionalization has been an utter and abject failure. Since it was first implemented, crime and homelessness skyrocketed. There are people in this world that no one will ever care for and who are an obvious threat to themselves or others. These people have a very twisted sense of reality and have no business being out on their own. There are a significant number of people in the US who need to be placed back under protective custody of the state. They are often more than 1/3 of the homeless in US cities and 40% of the occupants of the US prison system. Personal Freedom means nothing if it allows a person to become a constant threat and a blight to others. I would argue that such freedom is excessive selfishness to a degree that is despicable.

There is a clear common thread in US mass shooters and attackers. A large portion of them should have been locked up in institutions and would have been 60 years ago.



Since gun control has been implemented in Australia, there have been almost no mass shootings, correct?

Your post is really old but I feel a need to reply to this. Countries like Hong Kong, Finland, Luxembourg and Singapore have almost zero issues with terrorism and crimes, yet they do not locked up those mentally ill.

 

[OtterParty]

Your post is really old but I feel a need to reply to this. Countries like Hong Kong, Finland, Luxembourg and Singapore have almost zero issues with terrorism and crimes, yet they do not locked up those mentally ill.

yes we do

 

[Twinkle2017]

yes we do

Which country?