Dahenjo on 3/10/2017 at 11:30
I wonder what the results would be, if possible, of a poll of those killed as to whether they prefer thoughts, prayers, and condolences after the fact, versus having had effective, sane, socially-responsible gun control in place?
[video=youtube;vx2vvl87eqY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx2vvl87eqY[/video]
(
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/richard-painter-gun-laws_us_59d2fc63e4b048a44324abd9) George W. Bush’s Ethics Lawyer Has A Good Idea For How We Could Change Gun Laws
(
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/politics/chris-murphy-las-vegas-shooting/index.html) The Sandy Hook senator has a blunt message: 'It's time for Congress to get off its ass and do something'
That's my senator, btw, I live 4 miles from Sandy Hook. A sane, un-corrupted democracy would have taken care of this after Columbine. Shame on us, America!
heywood on 3/10/2017 at 12:42
Since gun control has proven so effective in preventing terrorist attacks outside of the US... oh wait, no it hasn't.
Starker on 3/10/2017 at 12:44
Lack of gun control hasn't been effective in preventing terrorist attacks inside US either. But the amount of gun related deaths is higher in US than in most places outside of war zones.
I don't see why any country would allow people to have guns just for the heck of it. You have to get a license to drive a car, so that you wouldn't be a danger on the road, why not require a gun license for having something as dangerous as a gun?
Draxil on 3/10/2017 at 13:08
Quote Posted by Starker
Lack of gun control hasn't been effective in preventing terrorist attacks inside US either. But the amount of gun related deaths is higher in US than in most places outside of war zones.
I don't see why any country would allow people to have guns just for the heck of it. You have to get a license to drive a car, so that you wouldn't be a danger on the road, why not require a gun license for having something as dangerous as a gun?
Watch the video. It was an automatic weapon. He either bought it on the black market, at enormous expense, or he legally bought it after jumping through every(
http://targetworld.net/Steps%20for%20buying%20NFA%20(Class%20III%20Weaponry)%2011-3-07.pdf) bureaucratic hoop known to man. In other words, he had a license. To my knowledge, this is the first time an automatic weapon has been used in a mass shooting in this country. They're incredibly hard and expensive to come by.
Nicker on 3/10/2017 at 13:09
Here's a chilling collection of statistics, the (
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org) Gun Violence Archive.
This attack was "mass shooting" number 273, on day 275 of 2017. These are shootings with 4 or more casualties.
How about comprehensive back ground checks, no selling any guns to people with mental illness, one pistol for personal defense, one shotgun or rifle for home defense and NO rapid fire, large capacity, people killing devices for anyone except active military.
And no letting the NRA pervert the 2nd Amendment.
And not letting Congress make it easier to get suppressors, like they are doing at this very moment.
You can never get rid of guns in America but you can make it much more difficult for crazy people to get the kind of guns used for this sort of attack.
hopper on 3/10/2017 at 13:52
Quote Posted by heywood
Since gun control has proven so effective in preventing terrorist attacks outside of the US... oh wait, no it hasn't.
Seatbelts, airbags, guardrails and myriad other measures haven't eliminated traffic deaths, either. What is it with this silly idea that if no remedy can be 100% effective, it's useless and silly to try anything at all?
Besides which, most mass shootings in the USA in the last several years, including this one, don't seem to have been motivated by terrorism, anyway. The idea of gun control is to prevent gun casualties overall, not just those that are politically motivated.
Renault on 3/10/2017 at 14:49
It's kind of crazy that I live in a country where there's current legislation attempting to legalize the sale of silencers.
heywood on 3/10/2017 at 15:57
Quote Posted by hopper
Besides which, most mass shootings in the USA in the last several years, including this one, don't seem to have been motivated by terrorism, anyway. The idea of gun control is to prevent gun casualties overall, not just those that are politically motivated.
It's too early to establish the shooter's motive, but this sure looks like terrorism to me even if it isn't Islamic terrorism.
One thing I'll agree with is that the number of people killed and injured in this attack would have been lower if the attacker had used guns that couldn't be made automatic, or guns with lower capacity magazines. So I'm not unconditionally opposed to gun control.
The main thing that bugs me is the inevitable "how many more must die before we act to stop this" nonsense arguments that come out after every act of terrorism, as if legislating more gun regulations is going to stop terrorists from killing people. It didn't stop 86 people from being killed by a truck in Nice last year or 13 in Barcelona this year, or 23 killed by a bomb in Machester, or the 168 killed by McVeigh's bomb in the 90s, or the thousands killed by suicide bombs and car bombs every year in the Middle East and Africa. It's like trying to solve the opioid addiction problem by banning the sale of sterile syringes and needles.
Draxil on 3/10/2017 at 16:11
Quote Posted by Brethren
It's kind of crazy that I live in a country where there's current legislation attempting to legalize the sale of silencers.
Suppressors. And they're already legal in 42 states, just with the same hoops to jump through as listed above with automatic weapons. The use of suppressors in crime isn't common because of how it negatively affects the ease of firing and concealment, it's not by any means "silent", and it affects the ballistics and accuracy of the bullet. You can find criminal cases where suppressors have been used to commit murder but...they're very, very, very rare. Like crime committed with fully automatic weapons. Banning them entirely would affect pretty much no one except hobbyists.
icemann on 3/10/2017 at 16:21
He's just a crazy person who lost the plot. Doesn't make him a terrorist.
And gun control or not. Makes zero impact on terrorism. The logic of "well if everyone had access to guns, then there'd be less mass shootings since they'd shoot the shooter" falls flat when you look at how many mass shootings occur U.S wide each year vs other countries. And also factoring in just how often that actual scenario (the shooter being shot by a random civilian who happened to also have a gun) actually occurs. Which is almost zero. Has happened a couple of times, but almost never.
If you look at the rate of mass shootings in countries who introduced tight gun control, you'd see the positives that come with it. Which is a MASSIVE drop in gun related violence. Not absolute 100% reduction (since guns can always be obtained via black markets etc), but it's certainly a huge drop.
Here in Australia we had the (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)) Port Arthur massacre that occurred back in 96. Crazy kid got his hands on some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Killed 35, wounded 23. Tight gun controls were introduced as a result of it, and we've not had any mass shootings (on that scale) ever since. So it does work whether you believe in it or not.
