American Politics

[Drmke]

There really isn't a "solution." We've cultivated an intense culture of violence for the last 150 years...best case scenario it takes a few generations of serious reeducating (kids in schools, not really adults already out in society) and a near complete restructuring of our economic and mental health systems. We will get none of that of course.

But yeah, I'm with xi0 on this, the Democrat plan is meh but might help; however the Republican MOAR GUN NAO plan will make things much worse...though we already know which plan is winning out in the end. (SPOILER ALERT: It's the crazy violent one.)

 

[SharkBait]

There really isn't a "solution." We've cultivated an intense culture of violence for the last 150 years...best case scenario it takes a few generations of serious reeducating (kids in schools, not really adults already out in society) and a near complete restructuring of our economic and mental health systems. We will get none of that of course.

But yeah, I'm with xi0 on this, the Democrat plan is meh but might help; however the Republican MOAR GUN NAO plan will make things much worse...though we already know which plan is winning out in the end. (SPOILER ALERT: It's the crazy violent one.)

Education and anger management is the solution, Id rather not infringe upon the rights of americas, their right to privacy, and their right to own a gun.

 

[xi0]

I don't think most people are for repealing the 2nd amendment, but for stricter policies when it comes to who can own one legally.

But no, this isn't simply a case where laws can fix the problem. Plenty of people own guns illegally, but it does seem like a lot of these mass shootings are perpetrated by people who had legal and easy access to guns, and even military-grade weapons in some cases.

 

[M3J]

Do democrat candidates have a solution for mass shootings in America?

Do republicans? Or is it just to pretend to give a crap about the lives lost but still allow guns or not talk about it?

Hard to come up with a solution when crazies keep defending their rights to own a gun while guns can be acquired illegally, meaning a ban would place more guns in bad people's hands. Stricter gun control works, but that's trusting citizens not to go crazy or something, assuming they weren't planning on shooting someone/s in the first place. The messed up society has made it difficult to come up with a feasible solution. Not to mention, a mentally healthy, happy person can turn into a maniacal murderer overnight just because of a stressful event during the day.

Education and anger management is the solution, Id rather not infringe upon the rights of americas, their right to privacy, and their right to own a gun.

Republicans cry about the rights of Americans, but they take away the right to abortions, gay marriage, and whatever else they disagree with, or at least they try to.

and lol, no such thing as privacy anymore. You'd have to be off the grid somehow to have at least some sort of privacy.

---------- Post added October 05, 2015 at 02:10 PM ---------- Previous post was October 02, 2015 at 12:46 PM ----------

Why I don't like conservatives:

"omg that's so liberal! You liberals are dumb! Liberal this liberal that liberal everything negative! Confuse liberals with facts and figures, but only when it's unrelated to the argument! Caring about lives is so liberal, and why the country is in trouble!" Everything conservatives don't like or don't agree with or whatever, they call it liberal and use it like an insult, even if the person or media is conservative. Absolute worst to debate with/against, for the most part.

 

[SharkBait]

Another interview where a leading candidate hits a home run with logical and necessary comments on how our rights must be protected. I hope he wins.

 

[Drmke]

Every statistic and study about keeping a gun in your home demonstrates it to dramatically increase your chances of being shot (go figure). Have guns if you want them, but Rubio and other candidates begging the NRA to like them by saying stupid shit about guns is childish and harmful. But whatever, we've had hundreds of mass shootings in the past few years so why worry.

 

[M3J]

Yeah, it's logical to introduce more guns into the society and hope people don't shoot each other. Totally makes sense. Much logic. At this point, I don't even care about the debate anymore, not since people still defended guns even after students at Sandy Hook were massacred. They don't even understand the problem with guns and compare it to knives and bats. o\

 

[SharkBait]

Yeah, it's logical to introduce more guns into the society and hope people don't shoot each other. Totally makes sense. Much logic. At this point, I don't even care about the debate anymore, not since people still defended guns even after students at Sandy Hook were massacred. They don't even understand the problem with guns and compare it to knives and bats. o\

I dont see what is illogical about that comparison. Ive often told people that banning guns wont stop people who are interested in killing from killing. Workplace violence still happens with people utilizing knives and other weapons to target people they are angry against. The same would hold true in a society without recreational devices like guns. If one is angry and they want to kill they will find someway to do it. Guns arent the problem, people are. American history teachings us that banning and strict control doesnt solve anything, look at alcohol during that part of history. Even today when alcohol rules are in place we have numerous DUI offendors (people that have killed twice even).

 

[M3J]

I dont see what is illogical about that comparison. Ive often told people that banning guns wont stop people who are interested in killing from killing. Workplace violence still happens with people utilizing knives and other weapons to target people they are angry against. The same would hold true in a society without recreational devices like guns. If one is angry and they want to kill they will find someway to do it. Guns arent the problem, people are. American history teachings us that banning and strict control doesnt solve anything, look at alcohol during that part of history. Even today when alcohol rules are in place we have numerous DUI offendors (people that have killed twice even).

Makes mass murder harder. Actually, it makes murder harder in general because bat and knife require being close to attack and element of surprise. With gun, as long as you shoot them in the right area, you can kill far away. Assault rifles make it easier to kill multiple people in less than a minute. I don't recall seeing anyone kill multiple people with a knife or a bat.

I know, and I use the Prohibition to argue against banning guns and how criminals are more likely to have guns as they'd get it illegally, while most citizens who aren't gun crazy would prefer to follow the rules. And the main reason why we have DUI offenders is because the punishment isn't harsh enough, which is different from mass shooters.

---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:58 PM ----------

Different because DUI offenders aren't about killing people or wanting to kill themselves or attention, most of the time. Shooters either want attention or want to kill people for whatever reason, from being a virgin who gets rejected by women to someone wanting national fame, and they tend to shoot themselves.

 

[SharkBait]

We havent had any cases where the people with guns are killing from *far away*. I havent seen any recent sniper incidents in america. In fact the recent shootings here have been at chillingly close ranges (he was litrally behind them while filming). And there are incidents where there are numerous killed from knife attacks.

 

[xi0]

I dont see what is illogical about that comparison. Ive often told people that banning guns wont stop people who are interested in killing from killing. Workplace violence still happens with people utilizing knives and other weapons to target people they are angry against. The same would hold true in a society without recreational devices like guns. If one is angry and they want to kill they will find someway to do it. Guns arent the problem, people are. American history teachings us that banning and strict control doesnt solve anything, look at alcohol during that part of history. Even today when alcohol rules are in place we have numerous DUI offendors (people that have killed twice even).

Yeah but if it makes it harder for people to do so, then how can reform be bad? I don't see why anyone would argue against that unless they had a vested interest or are unstable. Do you even own a gun?

 

[SharkBait]

Yeah but if it makes it harder for people to do so, then how can reform be bad? I don't see why anyone would argue against that unless they had a vested interest or are unstable. Do you even own a gun?

I dont own one but Ive been too shooting ranges. Its a great recreational activity.

 

[xi0]

I dont own one but Ive been too shooting ranges. Its a great recreational activity.

I'm not talking about removing peoples ability to use them for recreation, but doing nothing about it doesn't seem like it's of benefit to anyone but the NRA and it's lobby.

 

[M3J]

We havent had any cases where the people with guns are killing from *far away*. I havent seen any recent sniper incidents in america. In fact the recent shootings here have been at chillingly close ranges (he was litrally behind them while filming). And there are incidents where there are numerous killed from knife attacks.

The point is it's easier to kill multiple people with guns than it is with knives or cleavers. How many people have used knives or similar to commit mass murder as opposed to guns? If any of those shooters had a knife or bat, it'd be easier to take them down.

Having an armed vet or more people with guns isn't going to help if the shooter/s know who the armed people are. They'll either be more prepared or take out the ones that can fight back first before going on a rampage. Undercover works, but it probably wouldn't take long before shooters pack more armor and better weapons to deal.

 

[kkck]

The point is it's easier to kill multiple people with guns than it is with knives or cleavers. How many people have used knives or similar to commit mass murder as opposed to guns? If any of those shooters had a knife or bat, it'd be easier to take them down.

Having an armed vet or more people with guns isn't going to help if the shooter/s know who the armed people are. They'll either be more prepared or take out the ones that can fight back first before going on a rampage. Undercover works, but it probably wouldn't take long before shooters pack more armor and better weapons to deal.

I'd argue that the issue is that gun's are designed and made for the sole purpose of ending a life whereas knifes today have a range of legitimate uses which specifically do not involve killing. Guns plainly don't have a function other than killing. Even bullets are overall designed to make wounds as serious as possible (to make the victim bleed, to break inside to cause more damage...). I don't see how the comparison to a knife, a legitimate tool that makes every day life easier, is anything short of ridiculous.

Ultimately it's the batman scenario. People (well, gun fanatics) are hoping that arbitrary mass shootings could be averted by simply having people with guns to stop them. However this implies the coincidence that someone packing happens to be at mass shootout, then that this person does not freak out at seeing a nut job with, getting a clear shot at the guy even with people potentially panicking around him and taking him doing without getting shot at. It's not an inconceivable scenario but it is extremely improbable as it would imply this guy has serious and constant training with this, certainly beyond what you'd get at a recreational shooting range. There is a bigger risk of this turning into a shootout than taking down the other guy in the end. I am pretty sure even the police don't get this stuff done easily anywhere in the world, not just the states (mass shootings happen in other countries as well).

 

[Knight of Stalwart Heart]

Ofcourse people are the problem.But Guns make it easier to kill people.I don't know what's tough to understand here.Everytime it's said that Guns shouldn't be loosely sold to people,someone says "Guns don't kill people,people kill people".Let's give free Guns to people and see how that goes

 

[M3J]

I'd argue that the issue is that gun's are designed and made for the sole purpose of ending a life whereas knifes today have a range of legitimate uses which specifically do not involve killing. Guns plainly don't have a function other than killing. Even bullets are overall designed to make wounds as serious as possible (to make the victim bleed, to break inside to cause more damage...). I don't see how the comparison to a knife, a legitimate tool that makes every day life easier, is anything short of ridiculous.

Guns are also used for recreational stuff like shooting range, but yeah, ultimately guns are designed to harm or kill others, humans or animals. But that's probably one reason why gun owners vehemently defend gun rights, because they claim they need it to make sure their families are safe.

Ultimately it's the batman scenario. People (well, gun fanatics) are hoping that arbitrary mass shootings could be averted by simply having people with guns to stop them. However this implies the coincidence that someone packing happens to be at mass shootout, then that this person does not freak out at seeing a nut job with, getting a clear shot at the guy even with people potentially panicking around him and taking him doing without getting shot at. It's not an inconceivable scenario but it is extremely improbable as it would imply this guy has serious and constant training with this, certainly beyond what you'd get at a recreational shooting range. There is a bigger risk of this turning into a shootout than taking down the other guy in the end. I am pretty sure even the police don't get this stuff done easily anywhere in the world, not just the states (mass shootings happen in other countries as well).

Not only that, but the ones who have guns should also be mentally stable and have no inclination to go on a spree themselves. I mean, you don't even have to be mentally unhealthy, be a bad person, or have bad upbringing to start going on a murder spree. You could just as easily be angry at the world or something and start killing as result.

Ofcourse people are the problem.But Guns make it easier to kill people.I don't know what's tough to understand here.Everytime it's said that Guns shouldn't be loosely sold to people,someone says "Guns don't kill people,people kill people".Let's give free Guns to people and see how that goes

I can kind of see the validity in that argument. Shooters usually want to take out as many people as possible, but if tons of would-be victims have guns, shooters are not as likely to go on a shooting spree. Although, they could always compensate by setting off a bomb or sniping.

 

[SharkBait]

I dont know of a world that would work the way that is imagined. People were hired with normal average joe jobs then they get fired and go shoot up the work place with showing no signs of having a bad upbringing or any personal vendettas against the world for a bad childhood. Youd be trying to predict crime before it happens. Thatd be like trying to predict who would and wouldnt become a terrorist using average jane americans raised and going to colleges being engineers. Its not possible.

 

[kkck]

Well, but that sort of thing is actively used today and it works pretty well. Take airports for instance (probably not US airports though). Many have implemented profiling techniques (beyond racial profiling of course) to identify threats and at large these have been effective. It should be completely possible to train people involved at the various stages of owning a gun to identify potential threats. You just need, well, more strict gun control and to train everyone involved at every stage of owning a gun (well, not everyone, just everyone relevant). Heck, just adding people who have been arrested or detained within a timeframe to a no-gun and confiscation list and you'd be making significant headway.

 

[SharkBait]

How does racial profiling work against a cauasian or africab american? Or people with no criminal record? Will you prevent everyone who went to the middle east or has ties to any african and middle east country from buying a gun and using any form of public transportation in america? Why do you want to prevent honest americans from traffic and to gain a stereotype they dont need. Its bad enough people now assume people of middle east origin in american are looked down upon. Your proposal would set them back 100 yrs.