Study shows gun control would prevent mass shootings

Womacker said:
Why is it gun legislature is something that needs to be passed? It's dropped 75% in 40 years and continues dropping. Wouldn't it be better to encourage gun safety courses and spend more on mental health?


Edit: Gun crimes I mean
Click to expand...
Problem there is that it's a measure that doesn't keep politicians elected. That's all Gun Control really is; it's an issue to run on. You whip your constituency into fear over big scary guns, maybe get some action on the side, then get some ineffectual measures put into place, like '94's Assault Weapons Ban. After all, if nothing is fixed, your constituents will be left terrified and you can always reassure them that you'll work even hard next session to get more change! Or at least until they, inevitably, lose attention and move onto the next hot-button issue.

Trans people bathroom usage is another great example. No one cared before and I'm sure plenty used the bathroom of their preference long before it popped up as an "issue."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Army Burger, Assorted Nuts, Duke Nukem and 1 other person
Vitriol said:
A negligible problem that does not exist elsewhere.

I looked into the gun deaths by race thing. The UK has 0.23 deaths per 100k pop per year.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

There isnt a single us state where white gun deaths per 100K are anything like as low.
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-by-raceethnicity/

Those numbers are pretty horrible, there is clearly a problem and while it may be worse in the black community it is not confined there.

The US in 2010 had a higher gun death per head of pop figure than south Africa. That is not a system that is working imo.
Click to expand...

"Gun deaths" is misleading. Are you talking about homicide involving a firearm, or are you talking about all types of deaths involving firearms like suicides, accidental deaths and justifiable shootings? The media, which has been biased against civilian ownership of firearms for a very long time, and anti-gun politicians like to make people feel like they're about to be murdered by someone with a gun by using vague terms like that to make it seem more likely than it actually is. Instead of quoting the actual numbers of homicides by firearms they'll lump all the numbers together to make people believe our firearms homicide rate is higher than it actually is. Homicides involving blunt instruments like hammers and bats, knives and other bladed weapons, and even being beaten to death are all much higher than homicides by shooting. Suicide by firearm is fairly high given our easy access to firearms and the high success rate and relative painlessness of shooting oneself in the head. It's sad that those numbers are so high, but I feel if someone is going to kill them self I'd rather it be quick and painless. I'd rather they NOT commit suicide all together, and that kind of circles around to the US, and the Western World in general, needing better mental health programs.

The issues we are facing are complicated ones. The big problem is everyone wants a simple solution to all our problems because of the way we live our lives in this modern world. We can get pretty much anything we want nearly instantaneously. Information, entertainment, food, etc. That relative ease in our lives makes us want to have all our problems solved just as easily. A pill to make us feel better, a law passed to make us feel safer, etc. But you can't solve complex problems easily like that. It's like a doctor prescribing a patient with tuberculosis cough syrup. It will mask the symptoms, but it won't cure the problem. It's a Band-Aid solution that doesn't really help, it just makes the patient feel better for a short time. It's the same way with gun control. Instead of doing things that will actually help the problem like improving our economy, bringing jobs to the market to help reduce impoverished areas, ending the War on Drugs to put the cartels/drug dealers/gangs our of business, fixing the prison industrial complex, improving education, etc. we want Band-Aid solutions to make us feel better NOW. We don't want to put in the hard work to actually fix our system. And that's just as much our fault as it is the politicians who are fucking everything up, because they're ultimately fucking up because that's the message we are giving them.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Jace E. Denton, Army Burger, Shokew and 3 others
Shugo said:
Inevitable. Even if it did pass, the first person turned down for a gun sale would be immediately filing for a lawsuit against this, rightfully claiming he or she was stripped of his rights with no due process from a secret list.
Click to expand...

It should be noted that these 4 measures would not have deterred people from buying guns to being with. Or prevented criminal acts with them. The NRA wins again, to the disdain of the majority that wanted otherwise, regardless...

The only way we're going to see gun control is if martial law is declared and guns are outlawed by it. Ain't no one gonna let that happen fast enough (for good... enough reasons, neither.).
 
Shokew said:
The NRA wins again, to the disdain of the majority that wanted otherwise, regardless...
Click to expand...

The wait list to appeal a National Instant Criminal Background Check deny is around 4 years. A 4 year wait for the government to let you buy a gun, after you pay hundreds if not thousands in lawyer/court fees, when they don't have to give any real reason, just denying you your rights from a secret list.

This only has the potential to restrict people of their rights. If terrorists are really swarming this country, and we know them, go arrest them. If you can't prove anything, don't restrict their rights because of some "terror connection." There is a very high standard of proof required to strip someone of their constitutionally-protected rights, and given how the country has abused the terror-watchlists, they certainly don't need to have more power.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: Jace E. Denton, Splendid and Shokew
Didn't the NRA start out as a hobbyists' association? When did they mutate into a powerful lobby?
 
OfflineCyberBully said:
Didn't the NRA start out as a hobbyists' association? When did they mutate into a powerful lobby?
Click to expand...

When 5 million voters started paying them directly to defend their rights in congress.

The NRA is nowhere near as powerful as the actual lobbies that get stuff done. Michael Bloomberg himself personally spends more millions of dollars to spread anti-gun propaganda than the NRA spends in a year. A singular entity outspent the entire NRA for a year, and the anti-gunners are still claiming the NRA has our congress at gunpoint.

The real power of the NRA comes from single-issue voters who go to the NRA website and see the rating their candidate has on gun rights. 5 million active NRA subscribers, and who-knows how many more supporters. The only reason I don't have a subscription is I hear they hound you like no tomorrow if you end your subscription to their magazine.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: waffle and Shokew
Shugo said:
When 5 million voters started paying them directly to defend their rights in congress.

The NRA is nowhere near as powerful as the actual lobbies that get stuff done. Michael Bloomberg himself personally spends more millions of dollars to spread anti-gun propaganda than the NRA spends in a year. A singular entity outspent the entire NRA for a year, and the anti-gunners are still claiming the NRA has our congress at gunpoint.

The real power of the NRA comes from single-issue voters who go to the NRA website and see the rating their candidate has on gun rights. 5 million active NRA subscribers, and who-knows how many more supporters. The only reason I don't have a subscription is I hear they hound you like no tomorrow if you end your subscription to their magazine.
Click to expand...

To be fair, there's just as much delusion to be found in some pro-gun folks. Alex Jones and his ilk have been ranting that Obama was "coming fer yer guns" ever since Obama was elected, and yet no such confiscation has taken place.
 
  • Agree
  • Disagree
Reactions: Shokew, Jace E. Denton, Vitriol and 3 others
OfflineCyberBully said:
Obama was "coming fer yer guns" ever since Obama was elected
Click to expand...

Obama has supported Australian-style gun control, which includes gun confiscation. He hasn't done it yet, but he has expressed support for it.

Maybe he would have tried it if millions and millions of AR-15s and other firearms weren't panic-bought after several mass shootings, arming the people who directly oppose him and his firearm bans.

I don't think people outside gun communities understand how many guns were sold after Sandy Hook.
 
  • Dumb
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: waffle, Tranhuviya, Shokew and 3 others
Shugo said:
Obama has supported Australian-style gun control, which includes gun confiscation. He hasn't done it yet, but he has expressed support for it.

Maybe he would have tried it if millions and millions of AR-15s and other firearms weren't panic-bought after several mass shootings, arming the people who directly oppose him and his firearm bans.

I don't think people outside gun communities understand how many guns were sold after Sandy Hook.
Click to expand...

There's no reason to confiscate the guns anyway. This isn't the 18th century, where both the civvies and the armies had approximately the same firepower at their disposal.

The U.S. Armed Forces are the most technologically-advanced fighting force the world has ever seen. Their research is decades ahead of anything available on the commercial market. So if there was an actual imposition of martial law, a group of people with AR-15s won't mean much against that weaponry and the manpower that wields it.

Obama isn't a tyrant or a dictator riding roughshod over the rights of the American people. Those who claim otherwise clearly don't know what the words "dictator" and "tyrant" mean and certainly haven't lived under either of them.
 
  • Agree
  • Disagree
Reactions: Marvin, Philosophy Zombie, Shokew and 5 others
So what should the US do about gun control if background checks are the devil? How is fixing the economy going to stop someone with mental problems (that could have been caught in mental health screening) from legally getting a gun?
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Shokew
OfflineCyberBully said:
The U.S. Armed Forces are the most technologically-advanced fighting force the world has ever seen. Their research is decades ahead of anything available on the commercial market. So if there was an actual imposition of martial law, a group of people with AR-15s won't mean much against that weaponry and the manpower that wields it.
Click to expand...

Because no matter how advanced your technology is, you still need boots to kick down doors to stop people dissenting against the government. And when the person kicking down that door might take a bullet to the head, the people raiding houses of political dissenters won't be as eager to do so. And when you get into blowing up entire neighborhoods to take out 1 person, every family related to anyone in that collateral damage just likely became an enemy against the government that murdered their family member.

No matter if Obama has tried or not to confiscate guns, he supports confiscating firearms, as does Dianne Feinstein, the leader in the gun control push in the US senate for decades.


The end goal of gun banners is confiscating guns. Even if they don't declare martial law, the moment they can vote a gun confiscation into law, they will do so immediately.
 
  • Dumb
  • Agree
Reactions: waffle, Marvin, Joan Nyan and 2 others
Can't we just have a DMV style system where you have to prove you're competent enough to have a gun and maintain it? I mean there is a ridiculous ammount of incidents of people literally shooting themselves by accident or their children killing themselves by accident because people are complete dumbfucks when it comes to storing their guns. It would also have the added benefit of some system in place to block potential mass shooters from having easy access to guns.

It should go like this.

1) Go to gun school. Learn the basics of guns (how to hold them, when to shoot, how to store gun)
2) Take a written exam to prove that you know your shit
3) Receive permit that in 4 weeks you must go to a practical exam
4) Pass practical exam and receive liscence
5) Register your guns

I'm not however sure that something like "gun insurance" would be necessary though.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Army Burger, Vitriol, autism420 and 2 others
Shugo said:
No matter if Obama has tried or not to confiscate guns, he supports confiscating firearms, as does Dianne Feinstein, the leader in the gun control push in the US senate for decades.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Winner
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: D. Sweatshirt, Duke Nukem, The Dude and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back