What I've noticed over the years on different forums is that Americans struggle with the concept of gun control. For some utter strange reason, Americans treat guns as binary, as in, you can have guns or you can't have guns; you either have all guns or no guns. Why can't Americans get into their heads that just some guns need banned and just have proper gun checks in place and enforced? Even after this thread, it will fly through the ears of Americans and they will default back to all guns or no guns. Why do you struggle?
There is a group of Americans who have Gun Separation Anxiety Syndrome. They have a need to light their hair on fire every time someone mentions background check or smaller magazines ...
One sure way to try and reduce the wrong people having the wrong weapons is to background check them and check up on them when their licence expires, you background check again.
It's the slippery slope syndrome: it starts with background checks and then smaller magazines and then bans assault rifles and then, and then, no guns.
Would such an endeavor not be better achieved by identifying specifically who the "wrong people" actually are, and then confining them to the appropriate facilities for the duration of their natural lives, rather than trying to reshape society to work around them? If there is something wrong with these individuals, such an approach would allow them to receive the treatment they need, and provide them with no way of avoiding or otherwise missing said treatment. Furthermore, once actually confined to the appropriate facilities, there will be no actual way for these individuals to physically acquire firearms or other weapons for the purpose of hurting themselves or others? When one thinks about the matter from a logical, rational perspective, it is nothing less than outright cruelty to leave these individuals in need of help, lose in society where they will not receive the help they need simply because society at large has no interest in looking after them. As far as society is concerned, these individuals in need of help can simply die in gutters and back alleys so long as they are out of sight.
Many, most gun lovers are devoid of basic empathy for the slain. They say they care but words and actions are a target practice apart.
Only a few days ago Dr Phil stated that there is no technology that can determine if someone wont commit atrocities. Until that exists gun control is needed far more vontrol than right now.
One can have empathy while still recognizing that various proposals are not viable solutions. It is no different than the matter of immigration. Having sympathy and empathy for those who are fleeing their home countries, is not grounds for allowing tens of millions of individuals to freely enter the united states, and simply overload a system that is already being strained to the breaking point. There are times when empathy must be had for those who will be negatively affected by a proposal.
What firearm-related restrictions can serve to prevent individuals from committing mass shootings? Even the nation of Australia has been unable to put an end to mass shootings entirely, as their long stretch of success came to an end only two months ago, committed by a known criminal, and with a firearm that was supposedly prohibited from public ownership, confiscated under the so-called buyback progarm, and subsequently destroyed.
One reason is the banning of one type of gun always leads to the banning of another and then another and then another. I think if one is interested in solving the mass shooting problem, one needs to look at history. To find out the reason why so few mass shootings occurred in the era of pre-gun control and why we have so many today in the era of massive gun control. I grew up in the decade of the 1950's, no gun control laws at all except one had to have a federal permit to own a machine gun. Yet there was but one mass shooting that entire decade. That one occurred in 1954 known as the United States Capitol Shooting Incident: Four Puerto Rican nationalists shot from the Ladies Gallery of the House of Representatives chamber and wounded five Representatives. That today would go down as a terrorist incident. Here's a list by decades and how the type of mass shootings has changed. From basically familicides or felony related, the shooter knew his victims to mass shootings taking place in public places against innocent bystanders. The shooter doesn't know his victims and it is killing for killing's sake. At least in the previous era, the shooter had a reason even if we think that reason as asinine. https://www.globalresearch.ca/mass-shootings-in-america-a-historical-review/5355990 Since we're not interested in finding out the root cause, the reason for all these mass shootings, is banning guns, even all guns going to solve that problem? I think not. I don't think we even care what the cause for the mass shootings are. I think if one takes away all the semi-automatics, these killings will continue with shotguns, rifles, pistols and the like. Take them away, these killers will switch means, knives, machetes, arson, fire, bombs, chemicals, you name it. As long as the urge to kill is there, that one who has the urge will find a way. In the mean time, we blame all these killings on guns as if the individual who is pulling the trigger and the reasons and cause behind him doing that, is totally irrelevant.
Correct, we here in Oz need more gun control measures to stop those two or three mass murders....but we're on the right path at least. A pitance compared to the usa ok corral.
Generally I'd agree with that but we're talking how many mass shootings this year in usa? Where is the concern from gun lovers of lives lost. Its all about me and my guns. Insane stuff.
Put an end to something is the usual fallacy. Again, you're defaulting between the extremes; loads of mass shootings v no mass shootings. Regulations REDUCE. America wipes out years of Australia gun stats in one weekend.
Seeking justification is more like a scramble. Gun control advocates are not wanting to remove testicals.
When I go shopping, I would prefer to hear that the nutter running amok has a knife, that way, I can smack the idiot over the head with a baseball bat. If the nut job had a hand gun and an assult rifle, running is in order. Anyone saying, "More guns" is the answer, the wheels have come off their trolley. One thing is for sure, if bullets are flying in a shopping mall, I don't want to be stood there with my protection gun as the cops run in. All of this adrenaline gun tooting battles are best kept in the fictional world of Hollywood and not on the streets. Clint Eastwood, John Wayne and Arnold Schwarzenegger only missed the 12 billion bullets because Hollywood is made up.
Britain can do pretty much anything it wants when related to guns. But I take it that banning guns will cure all the societies ills is what your getting at. Did you know our worst school killing was caused by a bomb in Michigan, 45 dead, 58 injured. Another bomb 168 dead and another 688 injured in Oklahoma City. Setting a place on fire or arson, 87 dead in Brooklyn in a night club. Just a couple of examples why I think finding out the cause for these mass killing is important. Much more important than just banning guns. No one cares as to why these things happen. Only about banning guns. Watch my words, even if guns are totally banned, the killing will continue. By other means for sure, but our society has taken a turn for the worst. We don't want to admit that, won't admit that. It's easier to blame guns that to take a good look inside our society to see where we went wrong and perhaps, correct that problem. We won't, we don't care about that.
Because we are a nation with over 320 million people and not everyone agrees with you. Plus we have a Constitution that specifically states that we can own firearms, something that other nations do not have. Our Constitution is law, we can't just refuse to adhere to it and/or pick and choose which parts of it we want to abide by even in the event of tragedy. Plus few people actually argue that it's all guns or no guns. Sure there are some folks who argue that citizens should be able to own any and everything that the government has up to and including B-52 bombers. But the majority of us believe that the restrictions should stop at personal carried weapons, IE firearms designed for a single individual to wield. Rifles, shotguns, handguns, etc. Not crew served machine guns and tanks and whatnot. For most of us, let us have our handguns, shotguns, and rifles. We really don't care too much if you say we can't have bazookas and attack helicopters. It's when you start saying we can't have our rifles that we will start opposing you.
For me personally it is 2 folds that I struggle with any gun control. First of all it is because as a student of history and philosophy I know the "reasonable gun control" will not satisfy those that are pro gun control. It may satisfy to some point but in a few years an another crisis there will just be another push for more gun control till all the guns are taken away which brings me to my next point which is gun control is a red herring to gun deaths are just the symptom of a deeper rooted problem and we put so much focus on gun control that we never address the deeper root of the problem which is our values and morals. When I a mass shooting happens we should look to the values of society that would motivate someone to do this not look at the weapon that was used.
I'm glad someone else has openly said this. For all gun control advocates, when you continuously ask the question as to why gun owners tend to reject any and every proposal put forth, this is your answer.
Because the arguments used to promote 'reasonable' restrictions logically extend to what most of us consider unreasonable. Restricting ARs for example sets the precedent to restrict all semi-auto rifles, which sets the precedent to resyrict mag-fed handguns. Then its a small hop to restricting revolvers. Thats how its gone in most of the nations on earth, so don't give me the 'worried for nothing' crap. It happens that way more commonly than it doesnt. I wonder why the rest of the world struggled with the concept of self-determination so much that they gave up their means to effectively defend themselves from violent criminals.
Exactly. No cares about the causes or reasons these are happening. We had 41 from 1900-1979 with 13 of those 41 happening in the decade of the 1970's. Since 1980 then we have had at least 150, probably more. Do these folks really think that even if all guns were banned that the killing would stop. It wouldn't because the cause is still there. The means would change, to bombs, fire, arson, knives and machetes, chemicals, driving cars into crowds, any thing these would be killers could think of.
Yes, you're a gun culture that can only default to states of mind; loads of guns v no guns, which is the whole point of the thread. I know it's tricky, but the American culture needs to get out of this problem and realise there's a middle ground, a middle ground that the likes of the UK, Australia and New Zealand are using.
