This is why I'm glad that Australia makes it hard to legally obtain guns. Only military personel and the police should be allowed to carry them. Carrying a gun around is just asking for trouble. It makes the person carrying the gun an instant target. It installs the false belief that they are stronger than they actually are. Experienced criminals who use guns will be a lot more faster than other people -the slightest hesitation could mean death. Futhermore unless someone anticipates the attack beforehand most people wont have enough time to get a gun and load the bullets without their attacker seeing rendering the gun useless. I feel for the families affected by this crisis but this is what I think of the issue. Countries which allow teens and religious psychos to easily buy guns are seriously messed up. The law has failed the victims of this shooting.
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
United States Gun Control: Gun Control = Fascism Everybody!
- Thread starter Cipher
- Start date
- Status
Just because someone doesn't have a criminal record doesn't mean that they are incapable of causing harm.
Who saw this thread coming? *raises hand*
Anyway, I don't think we should go full out BAN ALL GUNS YO! because I don't find it neccessary or feasible at the moment.
HOWEVER-
Something needs to be done about the easy access of guns. It really should not be that easy to get one. And I hear this "oh well they'll just get them anyway lol". Okay? So that means we should just sit on our hands and do nothing? There's no reason why we can't make it harder for them to get.
I'm not sure how good of a solution this is, but I'm also in favor of regular mental health checkups of gun owners. If someone isn't found to be mentally fit, take the gun away until they are.
Anyway, I don't think we should go full out BAN ALL GUNS YO! because I don't find it neccessary or feasible at the moment.
HOWEVER-
Something needs to be done about the easy access of guns. It really should not be that easy to get one. And I hear this "oh well they'll just get them anyway lol". Okay? So that means we should just sit on our hands and do nothing? There's no reason why we can't make it harder for them to get.
I'm not sure how good of a solution this is, but I'm also in favor of regular mental health checkups of gun owners. If someone isn't found to be mentally fit, take the gun away until they are.
Which is going to be rather obsolete in about 20 years from now when you have wide spread 3D printers that can print out guns.
You do realize there are Concealed Carry laws in which people can walk around with a hand gun hidden under their shirt completely concealed from the public, making much of your argument here moot.
Except this guy didn't buy his gun HE STOLE THEM
EmphaticPikachu
A tired little girl~
Agreed and I totally saw it coming. XD
In anycase, any other direct solutions that come off of this?
The Great Butler
Hush, keep it down
Banning all guns is not the answer. Not only is it unfeasible, there's really no reason for it.
What I support is simple. Restrict the sales of assault weapons and magazines with several dozen rounds in them, and put in place a better background check system. The debate goes on from there, but I think those are simple, reasonable steps most could agree on.
I acknowledge that this would not have entirely stopped the horror of this shooting from occurring, because this shooter stole the weapons from his mother, who had them legally. But it would have at least helped keep the primary weapon used and the ability to open fire with little need to reload out of play. Simply reflexively responding to a single event like this would be a mistake when there are a number of larger issues at play here.
What I support is simple. Restrict the sales of assault weapons and magazines with several dozen rounds in them, and put in place a better background check system. The debate goes on from there, but I think those are simple, reasonable steps most could agree on.
I acknowledge that this would not have entirely stopped the horror of this shooting from occurring, because this shooter stole the weapons from his mother, who had them legally. But it would have at least helped keep the primary weapon used and the ability to open fire with little need to reload out of play. Simply reflexively responding to a single event like this would be a mistake when there are a number of larger issues at play here.
TheReckless1
Mind Wipe
I think this gun control issue is blown out of proportion. First off all, if people strongly desire something, they're gonna get it, legal or not. Secondly, a gun isn't the only way a person can take someone's life away (blades, poisons, heck even a brick can kill if you try hard enough). Lastly, maybe people should focus on regulating ammunition instead of guns. A gun is practically useless without bullets. Hate to put that way, but that's what I think of this issue.
I'd just like to point out that the first post has links to details on both Britain and Japan's gun-control laws, as well as their results. There are several international gun-violence statistics linked there too. (Spoiler alert: Britain and Japan have a much, much lower rate of gun-violence than the U.S., along with just about every country not economically dependent on drug-running or embroiled in civil war.)
Not just a self-report, though. An actual evaluation. It wouldn't catch everyone, but it could stop a lot.Kutie Pie said:
I'm glad to see nearly everyone in agreement. I'm fine with individuals owning guns -- a reasonable list of approved weapons for hunting or home-protection. However, we need to make the process of obtaining one as long, difficult and regulated as possible -- more of a privilege than a right.
Man, I hate this argument.
Like, you can say that, right? But it ignores so many things we know about the motives of these public attackers, and ignores the statistics of the U.S.'s 31 mass shootings in the last twenty-some years compared to the rest of the world's combined 14. I think there's much more credence to the theory that we see a trend of people's violent fantasies being enabled by easy access to guns (whether their own or a parent's). A waiting period, a lack of legal availability, etc, may give them the time to rethink the attack, or to be identified as needing help. At worst, we may see more violent attacks in the vein of China's knifing, which, I don't know about you, but based on the survival rate, is a very preferable alternative.
Which, by the way, covers my other hated argument: You can kill someone with almost anything; should we ban those too? No, because nothing is as effective at killing a room full of people as a semiautomatic weapon, and nearly everything you've listed has a separate practical use. If violent psychopaths will be violent psychopaths, let's at least remove their most effective tools.
And re: Restricting ammo. I'm all for that. It's a decent first step. I believe Canada has some sort of law where ordering ammo requires a current license, a nearly month-long waiting period and mandatory safety training. That's absolutely a good idea.
Last edited:
Snorunt conservationist
Banned
You're politicising an issue (this post originally having been written on the day of the shootings) which is far more complex than "some guy killed 20 today". You wished to do so while the bodies were still warm.
Shame on you.
Japan and Britain are also island nations that do not share a massive border that is largely dominated by illegal trade..
How about working instead to help those with Mental Health problems, I mean I think we all agree they shouldn't hold guns but we may be needing to work on reporting and helping those with troubled behavior from early on and maybe placing them on a "No Fly" list for guns in which they can only obtain them after a certified test. Because as had happened with this shooting, merely having laws preventing these people from buying guns will only cause them to get them through the black market or to merely steal them.
EmphaticPikachu
A tired little girl~
I edited my post to say that I noticed about a minute afterwards. ._....
D
Deleted member 318910
Guest
Okay, everybody needs to stop mentioning assault rifles. It is illegal to carry a FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifle. If fully auto ones were legal, so much more people can die since if you just have to hold down the trigger, spraying would be a lot easier. It is, however, legal to own a semi-automatic.
I agree; we should be doing more to support individuals with mental health issues.
Too bad Republicans cut funding for their support at every turn.
@BigLutz 1) Never gonna happen cos we have strict gun laws and stupidity isn't part of our constitution. 2) You completely missed my point. Concealed gun laws are completely irrelevant cos whether the gun is hidden under a shirt or in a purse once it has been pulled out -the attacker will react faster because of experience and because their gun is already loaded. Leaving the victim a sitting duck. 3) As the first post shows many guns that are used in school shootings etc were bought legally. Besides the issue of legality doesn't hide the fact that guns were conceived to be used as weapons -no matter how much Americans like to paint a more rosey picture. There's nothing rosey about the deaths of 20 innocent young people.
Last edited:
The Great Butler
Hush, keep it down
I wouldn't place this as the sole priority but this is a suggestion worth considering and discussing.
TheWatersGreatGuardian
Legendary Trainer
Oh, yeah. Democrats (the ones pushing america towards socialism) are the white knights. You know the answer is not always blaming the other party.
back on topic. Somehow I knew the outcry for gun control would get louder after this. Gun control would not have stopped this
EmphaticPikachu
A tired little girl~
I see that as much more of a long term solution. And we also need stats on just how many people who killed have mental problems, just to be safe that we know what we're doing. Not saying its not worth doing though.
Putting a restriction tends to ease it up on some people, and likely we would see a result a bit quicker. Obviously though gun control by itself doesn't mean crap if it doesn't end up working.
TheWatersGreatGuardian
Legendary Trainer
I see that as much more of a long term solution. And we also need stats on just how many people who killed have mental problems, just to be safe that we know what we're doing. Not saying its not worth doing though.
Putting a restriction tends to ease it up on some people, and likely we would see a result a bit quicker. Obviously though gun control by itself doesn't mean crap if it doesn't end up working.
All gun control would do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns. You take away our guns, a massive, thriving black market will spring up. Gun control is an illusion.
Keep your hands off my 2nd amendment rights government.
EmphaticPikachu
A tired little girl~
Thats when you entirely ban it like we did with alcohol back during prohibition. We're not entirly banning it. ._.
To be frank, I'm not for no access to guns. But restricting it is for security reasons is very much something that can be done.
- Status