I'm at the point where this might as well as being a daily basis activity, because the American people themselves allowed this shit to happen, all because they value their kinks for guns over people's lives.
Listen, I think some gun nuts are weird and creepy. There is definitely a glamorization of destructive output of weapons in some circles. But to label the majority of gun owners as having some sort of kink and therefore they're to blame is too far in the other direction for me to get behind.
From my perspective, "mental health issues" refer to neurological disorders such as autism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, etc... Personally, I don't buy the excuses that these factors are to blame for Nikolas Cruz's actions.
This situation seemed to be largely preventable if the kid was supervised and controlled. In other words, he needed to be put in his place by an authoritative figure. His guardians practically admitted that they saw no problem with him owning multiple rifles and the AR-15.
Nobody was paying attention to him, and this guy had a pretty consistent track record of negative behavior and a poor attitude.
Even if you were 100% right about this situation, it doesn't cover the multitudes of other incidents where there were little or no warning signs at all. Society might have failed this person and failed those at the school as a result, but there's no reality that exists where this kid's mental state isn't at least partially responsible for what happened. I don't care how neglected or even feral a person might be, you don't do what he did without some sort of mental derangement.
You don't need to be mentally deranged to go on a shooting spree. You can be evil or reach your boiling point or something. If US sets up an excellent mental health program in place, and we make it that anyone with any sort of mental health issue or potential mental health issue can't get guns, then what or whom will we blame if mass shootings still occur? People can be mentally healthy and be evil enough to want to kill others, or they might have an agenda and try to justify their horrible deeds with "ends justify the means."
Also, for those who think more guns would protect... didn't Fort Hood employees carry guns? It didn't stop two different mass shootings, if a lot of employees had guns on them.
Listen, I think some gun nuts are weird and creepy. There is definitely a glamorization of destructive output of weapons in some circles. But to label the majority of gun owners as having some sort of kink and therefore they're to blame is too far in the other direction for me to get behind.
I don't have an issue for people owning a weapon if it's used for, let's say, survival where nature is your only source of living. However, unless you're isolated in some forest somewhere in the country, we live in the 21st century where these activities aren't necessary anymore.
To place the blame on Gun Owners is certainly wrong and not my point, but to pin the blame on the Americans themselves is my entire point. I said they allowed this shit to happen because of the Gun Culture, not because of Gun Owners. Morons believe that the Government is the Boogieman like those Libertardians dumbfucks and think that guns will solve the issue to check them if they overstep their boundaries, or how extreme conservatives who seriously think that the Second Amendment gives anyone a right to carry a weapon meant to kill people without knowing the idea that it's made to tell the British to fuck off.
As harsh as I come out as, I will say I show sympathy for the victims and the 17 deceased. However, unless the American People could come join together and figure out a way to abandon these savage behaviors, the meaningless killings will continue and the legacy of Gun Violence will live. That, and the cancer that needs to be nuked off of the planet called "National Rifle Association".
The Second Amendment was created to protect against government tyranny, back before we got better and more destructive weapons. It's probably in response to how the British ruled, but not to directly fight England.
Americans will never come together though, and from what I've seen, conservatives/right wings refuse to let that happen.
The Second Amendment was created to protect against government tyranny, back before we got better and more destructive weapons. It's probably in response to how the British ruled, but not to directly fight England.
It wasn't made to directly fight the British; it was made to directly counter any British invasion because nobody knew if they were coming back.
At this day and age where not only did U.S. Diplomacy generated good results between nations (with the exception of North Korea and Iran), but also that the U.S. is considered to be THE most powerful country in human history. If idiots believe that "HUURRR DURRR MUH GUNZ WILL FITE OFFF DA GOVENMNT TYRANNY!11" like a bunch of retards that they are, then they're living in a fantasy world.
You don't need to be mentally deranged to go on a shooting spree. You can be evil or reach your boiling point or something. If US sets up an excellent mental health program in place, and we make it that anyone with any sort of mental health issue or potential mental health issue can't get guns, then what or whom will we blame if mass shootings still occur?
The only way mass shootings would occur in that scenario would be if rogue leadership were to be in place, so I dont think it would be a fault of the guns.
People can be mentally healthy and be evil enough to want to kill others, or they might have an agenda and try to justify their horrible deeds with "ends justify the means."
Only brain washed immigrant insurgents trained under anti American values engage in such actions. Stronger illegal immigration laws from people of such countries and monitoring would prevent these people from partaking in such activities.
It wasn't made to directly fight the British; it was made to directly counter any British invasion because nobody knew if they were coming back.
At this day and age where not only did U.S. Diplomacy generated good results between nations (with the exception of North Korea and Iran), but also that the U.S. is considered to be THE most powerful country in human history. If idiots believe that "HUURRR DURRR MUH GUNZ WILL FITE OFFF DA GOVENMNT TYRANNY!11" like a bunch of retards that they are, then they're living in a fantasy world.
And to fight government tyranny. I'm not 100% sure on this, but it's what the gun-loving maniacs keep insisting.
Yeah, they don't seem to realize that the military has enough firepower to destroy the average citizen. But I'm not sure if the US is considered the most powerful country given we have countries trying to challenge us, like Russia.
Hence why I consider them delusional scumbag who continues to practice such barbaric behavior. Then again, we do have some people here who continue to value their savage activity.
Yeah, they don't seem to realize that the military has enough firepower to destroy the average citizen. But I'm not sure if the US is considered the most powerful country given we have countries trying to challenge us, like Russia.
The only country that could really pose a "threat" to the U.S. is China, and they're still growing to the point where their military will spread around the world. The problem is that there's nothing to gain from a conflict between U.S. and China.
Russia, while does contain the second most powerful military in the world, is a nation that struggles to maintain their economy. Between Sanctions and low Oil prices, Russia's economy is deteriorating, which also impacts their military due to the lack of funds.
The U.S. has over 800 bases, millions deployed, highly-advanced weaponry, and they blow more money over Military Toys than the next 10 countries' military budget combined.
It'd have gone far enough and prevented so many victims had AR-15 been banned, and stricter gun control was in play. It could have been guessed that he had a nefarious plan, or his plan could have been prevented IF (I don't know if there is) there was a database on gun owners. He had twenty-three guns, which included two high-powered rifles. The source says those guns were bought in Nevada, California, Utah, and Texas, as well. Jump to IV. Suspect section, and you'll see there were signs he could have been capable of doing something dangerous. Stricter background checks and stricter gun control would have either prevented this or lowered the amount of victims.
You're more likely to stop a murderer from causing tons of damage, even if you can't stop his attempt to kill.
And funnily, you claim you're socially liberal or something, but this is pretty far from being socially liberal. Liberals are usually for stricter gun control because they don't like innocent lives ending.
Again, I don't deny that stricter background checks are necessary. I think we both agree on that. As for stricter gun control, it depends to what extent you're talking about. What do you exactly mean by "stricter" gun control?
Of course, I don't see the point of people walking around with LMGs, sniper rifles, and automatic weapons. But I do support self-defense... as did Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and many other civil rights leaders/activists. They rejected non-violence when it came to the question of self-defense.
I call myself socially liberal, but by the formal and original definition. The term "liberal" outside of contemporary politics generally supports civil rights of individuals. That includes the right to self-defense and owning a gun.
What you're referring to is "politically liberal" or American liberal, which I don't identify myself as. And to satisfy your curiosity, I don't align myself with the conservatives or republicans either.
I'm no friend to either party/political affiliation.
As Martin Luther King Jr. once put it:
"I feel someone must remain in the position of non-alignment, so that he can look objectively at both parties and be the conscience of both—not the servant or master of either." - Source
I agree with this.
He also said:
"I don’t think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses. And I’m not inextricably bound to either party." - Source
Again, I also agree with this.
Honestly, I'm speaking on the discussion of gun control from a logical and personal standpoint. I couldn't care less about the political agendas of the so-called "politicians".
It's mostly republicans as under Obama, we did make some progress in keeping guns out of unfit people's hands. Trump and politicians are happy putting more guns in more people's hands, no matter how dangerous they are, as long as NRA gives them money, and their families are safe.
... er, almost anyone being able to buy guns, and however many they want, is one of the problems in society. Look at how many mass shootings we have, and gun violence in general, and compare those numbers to other countries.
Not much progress was made actually, in my opinion. We still had multiple mass shootings after Obama successfully signed laws that improved background checks and banned the use of certain weapons.
Again, I'm not saying that I disagree with Obama, but from an objective standpoint, nothing has changed.
Criminals will be mass shooters if they desperately want to, it just depends on whether they have the guts to do it.
No I'm not. You brought up knives and vehicles, and I answered that knives and probably vehicles would result in far fewer victims, if not death. I'm pretty sure using a car or truck loaded with explosives wouldn't be as effective, and they'd run a chance of being caught. If they wanted to try this way, they would have already, nothing would stop them from using an explosive car with a gun. The point is, no gun in the hands of bad people or people thought to be at risk of violence would mean fewer deaths and fewer mass shootings.
Violence most likely can't be avoided. However, casualties can be minimized, and I'd much prefer a knifing spree where victims have higher chances of surviving.
You're missing the point. We're not talking about acts of violence, we're talking about reducing mass shootings and ultimately, gun violence. Simplest and best form of prevention would be stricter gun control and more extreme vetting. Japan does this, and they've seen less gun violence in a year than US has in a week. Would Paddock have been able to kill as many people as he did if he used a knife instead of guns? Would there have been 8 lives lost in a Charleston church if Dylann Roof used knives instead?
How would they be caught if they concealed their explosives inside their vehicles?
The Oklahoma City Bombing is a prime example of an attack perpetrated by a vehicle and some explosives. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make explosives in your own home or backyard.
The point is, if you ban only one type of weapon, it's not going to solve all the problems that we're facing now.
Criminals will still have several other methods of conducting a massacre, just as effectively.
Again, I agree that we can take steps to reduce mass shootings and gun violence, but the strategy to achieve that is highly subjected to debate.
Paddock wouldn't be able to kill as many people as he did if he used a knife, but he could if he used an illegally-purchased gun from the black market. Or even worse, he could use a vehicle with some explosives to accomplish the same result. With mass crowds like in Las Vegas, he has numerous options of carrying out his rampage.
His mom was. I think the schools and students were as well. The mom called the cops multiple times, and even the FBI apparently were told, but did nothing. If they mentioned that in a database, then Cruz would have been less likely to get a gun. If Florida didn't sell AR-15 or had a higher age limit, then he definitely would not have gotten a gun legally, and the mass shooting could have been avoided. Even if he got the guns illegally, he'd have to put in more work and hope he didn't get caught, IF he even managed to get the guns.
Well, his guardians already admitted that they had no clue about his behavior and his intentions of shooting people at the school.
"We had this monster living under our roof and we didn’t know. We didn’t see this side of him." ~ Kimberly Snead - Source
"Everything everybody seems to know, we didn’t know. It’s as simple as that." ~ James Snead - Source
Just calling the cops, and then ignoring whatever Nikolas Cruz does next doesn't count as being a proper guardian. If they knew he was going to conduct a mass shooting, I'm pretty sure they would have prevented it.
Both the guardians and the FBI were oblivious to his plans.
Even if you were 100% right about this situation, it doesn't cover the multitudes of other incidents where there were little or no warning signs at all. Society might have failed this person and failed those at the school as a result, but there's no reality that exists where this kid's mental state isn't at least partially responsible for what happened. I don't care how neglected or even feral a person might be, you don't do what he did without some sort of mental derangement.
Sure, I agree that his actions are indicative of a mentally deranged person. In that respect, I would consider it as a "mental health issue".
But I just wanted to distinguish the difference between what some people may call "mental health" and the actual condition of having a "neurological disorder". There are numerous cases where court cases have attributed a criminal's actions to different kinds of neurological disorders such as depression, schizophrenia, autism, etc. In this situation specifically, I disagree with that analysis.
In my opinion, the kind of murder that Nikolas Cruz committed was attributed to his poor decisions and twisted mindset.
There needs to be a national database for all guns, mandatory waiting periods for buying them regardless of type or where they're purchased. No loopholes on private sales, period. Leaving gun laws up to the states clearly isn't helping anything.
Care about mental health and bullying when you're not for gutting funding to healthcare and the department of education, then maybe I won't be cynical about right-wingers only wanting to address these issues whenever the latest mass-murder occurs.
Canada had that and didn't stop the Dawson College shooting. Law abiding citizens would register their legal guns but illegal guns and gangs wouldn't register them.
The only way to eliminate the gun problem is to stop being afraid of people and viewing guns as a deadly weapon not something an average citizen carries around like a wallet.
Canada had that and didn't stop the Dawson College shooting. Law abiding citizens would register their legal guns but illegal guns and gangs wouldn't register them.
The only way to eliminate the gun problem is to stop being afraid of people and viewing guns as a deadly weapon not something an average citizen carries around like a wallet.
You have to take the US context into account. The stuff xi0 mentions would be common sense and necessary but there is an important thing to consider. It's not actually gun control. Which is why I have been saying the issues the US has regarding guns are mostly cultural. The fact is, anywhere in the world meaningful gun control is effectively specifically about removing guns from society, literally taking away guns from people. It's what they famously did in australia, it's the idea behind what they do in england and japan and it is the principle that is what they do in most other places with actual gun control. However guns are so deeply engraved into US culture that even people who are pro "gun control" do not actually support anything meaningful. Real gun control is incompatible with the second amendment's current interpretation. Even in other countries where people do have a right to own firearms there are substantially more limitations to it than even anti gun people at the US would go for.
And what bothers me most about this whole thing the US has with guns is that it not only affects gun violence in their own country but also in others. Where do you suppose illegal guns in canada come from? Where do you suppose mexican cartels get their own guns from? A substantial part of that comes from the US where getting guns is laughably easy. US culture fuels not only violence in their own country but in others.... Of course canada still has substantially less gun violence than the US even with the smuggled weapons....
You have to take the US context into account. The stuff xi0 mentions would be common sense and necessary but there is an important thing to consider. It's not actually gun control. Which is why I have been saying the issues the US has regarding guns are mostly cultural. The fact is, anywhere in the world meaningful gun control is effectively specifically about removing guns from society, literally taking away guns from people. It's what they famously did in australia, it's the idea behind what they do in england and japan and it is the principle that is what they do in most other places with actual gun control. However guns are so deeply engraved into US culture that even people who are pro "gun control" do not actually support anything meaningful. Real gun control is incompatible with the second amendment's current interpretation. Even in other countries where people do have a right to own firearms there are substantially more limitations to it than even anti gun people at the US would go for.
And what bothers me most about this whole thing the US has with guns is that it not only affects gun violence in their own country but also in others. Where do you suppose illegal guns in canada come from? Where do you suppose mexican cartels get their own guns from? A substantial part of that comes from the US where getting guns is laughably easy. US culture fuels not only violence in their own country but in others.... Of course canada still has substantially less gun violence than the US even with the smuggled weapons....
That is true most guns are smuggled from the US and laws keep people safe. However, at the end of the day laws are laws and created by people and if certain people don’t believe in those laws they will break them. The first step is setting laws but at the end of the day if guns are viewed as protection rather than sport for civilians people are going to buy them illegally. There also needs to be laws on manufacturing because they are producing these weapons. If not, the other laws are just a band-aid solution. I just feel like the US isn’t taking this situation seriously and thinking this strategically. I mean, in order to get rid of a problem one has to start at the root and there are so many roots and issues that it won’t be fixed easily.
That is true most guns are smuggled from the US and laws keep people safe. However, at the end of the day laws are laws and created by people and if certain people don’t believe in those laws they will break them. The first step is setting laws but at the end of the day if guns are viewed as protection rather than sport for civilians people are going to buy them illegally. There also needs to be laws on manufacturing because they are producing these weapons. If not, the other laws are just a band-aid solution. I just feel like the US isn’t taking this situation seriously and thinking this strategically. I mean, in order to get rid of a problem one has to start at the root and there are so many roots and issues that it won’t be fixed easily.
I am not sure if you mean that guns are the root of the problem or rather gun violence is a consequence of other factors indifferent to gun laws. Gun violence I would argue is ultimately both things, there are social factors that aggravate gun violence of course (say, poverty) but even taking those into account guns themselves are the problem. There are plenty of studies showing that merely owning a gun increases your chances of being shot for instance. Which is quite literally the opposite of what should happen if the NRA was even a tiny bit right about anything at all. And the issue here isn't even mass shootings themselves, afaik those barely even put a dent on gun crime statistics. It's the wrong thing to even be paying attention to. The discussion could ultimately have all sorts of levels of nuance more... if congress hadn't blocked any research on gun violence with federal funding...
I am not sure if you mean that guns are the root of the problem or rather gun violence is a consequence of other factors indifferent to gun laws. Gun violence I would argue is ultimately both things, there are social factors that aggravate gun violence of course (say, poverty) but even taking those into account guns themselves are the problem. There are plenty of studies showing that merely owning a gun increases your chances of being shot for instance. Which is quite literally the opposite of what should happen if the NRA was even a tiny bit right about anything at all. And the issue here isn't even mass shootings themselves, afaik those barely even put a dent on gun crime statistics. It's the wrong thing to even be paying attention to. The discussion could ultimately have all sorts of levels of nuance more... if congress hadn't blocked any research on gun violence with federal funding...
There are a number of roots; one you pointed out is poverty, which can appeal crime to someone with guns as a source (robbery, gangs). Another is the culture of being afraid of neighbours and a delusion that everyone can own a gun. Guns are weapons who can kill someone and bring pain to the families and need safety precautions.
Here in Canada, guns have to be stored separate from the ammo and have to be hidden/locked so no one can find them or have access. I know people who own guns but I have never seen them. Switzerland has a lot of people who use guns but they view it as sport and have strict laws on where to store them. Guns aren't toys.
From a logical standpoint, stricter gun control makes sense and is good. If you prevent people with bad or violent histories from getting guns, you reduce their chances of committing gun violence. Majority, if not all, of the guns used during mass shootings were bought legally, and in this case, the Parkland shooter wasn't even 21 when he bought the guns.
Vox wrote an article on gun control research and ultimately said that stricter gun control was actually good, despite what NRA says. But the studies have some sort of limitation that I forgot, but still. It would prove that CDC being banned from doing researches on guns is likely due to getting results that pro-gun maniacs/NRA don't want. Plus, there are more hurdles to cross if you want to buy a gun illegally, which increases your chances of being caught.
From a logical standpoint, stricter gun control makes sense and is good. If you prevent people with bad or violent histories from getting guns, you reduce their chances of committing gun violence. Majority, if not all, of the guns used during mass shootings were bought legally, and in this case, the Parkland shooter wasn't even 21 when he bought the guns.
Vox wrote an article on gun control research and ultimately said that stricter gun control was actually good, despite what NRA says. But the studies have some sort of limitation that I forgot, but still. It would prove that CDC being banned from doing researches on guns is likely due to getting results that pro-gun maniacs/NRA don't want. Plus, there are more hurdles to cross if you want to buy a gun illegally, which increases your chances of being caught.
What gets me is why do teachers need guns now? Let’s solve a big issue with an even bigger one A kid could steal it and how many teachers are trained to use it in a non-lethal manner? Think of the lawsuit for killing a student with or without that student on a killing spree.
What gets me is why do teachers need guns now? Let’s solve a big issue with an even bigger one A kid could steal it and how many teachers are trained to use it in a non-lethal manner? Think of the lawsuit for killing a student with or without that student on a killing spree.
I am reasonably sure it is a conceptual impossibility altogether to use a gun in a non lethal manner. It's not like you can shot a guy in the leg and expect the guy to not bleed to death...
You probably have a bigger issue with their leadership, lobbying wing, and politicians who are on their bankroll. There are a ton of NRA members, and most support stricter gun laws, if polls are to be believed. That and it's probably worth mentioning that no known NRA member has a committed a mass shooting.
Canada had that and didn't stop the Dawson College shooting. Law abiding citizens would register their legal guns but illegal guns and gangs wouldn't register them.
And I don't think weapon registration or stricter background checks would have prevented the shooting in Florida either, but that doesn't mean they're bad ideas and should therefore not be considered. Common sense is common sense.
You probably have a bigger issue with their leadership, lobbying wing, and politicians who are on their bankroll. There are a ton of NRA members, and most support stricter gun laws, if polls are to be believed. That and it's probably worth mentioning that no known NRA member has a committed a mass shooting.
And I don't think weapon registration or stricter background checks would have prevented the shooting in Florida either, but that doesn't mean they're bad ideas and should therefore not be considered. Common sense is common sense.
It was controversial over here when they scrapped the registry. It cost too much money for policing hunters/farmers who use guns for shooting deer. Still doesn't show where the illegal guns are hiding and just says who may have what gun. In order to buy a gun one needs a Possessions Acquisitions license from a hunter safety course, which works well for over here. Don't think that would be the solution for the US but a registry seems flawed and I don't think everyone would register their guns properly. To me, it would be common sense that a registry would have errors and it would be naïve to think otherwise.
You probably have a bigger issue with their leadership, lobbying wing, and politicians who are on their bankroll. There are a ton of NRA members, and most support stricter gun laws, if polls are to be believed. That and it's probably worth mentioning that no known NRA member has a committed a mass shooting.
Yet they oppose any form of Gun Control and uses the 2nd Amendment as a pissing excuse. Maybe the members do support Gun Laws, but that doesn't change the fact that the NRA itself is the biggest obstacle that gives the American people (including the victims and their families) the big middle finger.
The NRA is far too powerful as an organization that it negatively impacts the country with their barbaric activity, that's why I said they deserved to be nuked off of the planet.
I mean, in order to get rid of a problem one has to start at the root and there are so many roots and issues that it won’t be fixed easily.