United States Gun Control: Gun Control = Fascism Everybody!

[Cipher]

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.

No.

Do you want to know why the country (my country, the United States, where you don't live) exploded with gun control talks Friday? Because after more than three mass shootings in less than six months, because after we witnessed a horrible tragedy no one wants to see again, the only thing to do is to ask why it happened and what can be done to prevent it in the future.

Ezra Klein said it well in a Friday piece for the Washington Post: "Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not. 'Too soon,' howl supporters of loose gun laws. But as others have observed, talking about how to stop mass shootings in the aftermath of a string of mass shootings isn’t 'too soon.' It’s much too late."

At any rate, it's Sunday now. Do you feel like continuing to be pedantic and contribute nothing to a discussion about another country's problems, or do you want to actually engage in some legitimate discourse?

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.

Why does working to help those with mental health problems have to be an "instead?" Improving mental health support and decreasing easy access to guns aren't mutually exclusive, and it's obvious they're both huge parts of the problem.

However, gun legislation is more immediate, both in terms of feasibility and safety. So that's where you see a lot of discussion right now. It's not THE fix -- it's just the most pertinent and the most, to some degree, achievable.

You're right that there are always other ways for even "no fly" individuals to obtain them, but why shouldn't we make it more difficult? And not just for them, but for everyone, to reduce saturation.

And I want to be clear right now: This is not an indictment of gun-owners or hobbyists. This is not a cry to ban guns entirely. This is, however, a debate about whether substantially increased gun control would limit gun-related homicide and mass shootings, which every piece of statistical evidence seems to suggest is true.

 

[Cosmical El Amarna]

Keep your hands off my 2nd amendment rights government.

Well technically,

What the second amendment says about 'gun ownership' was written nearly a century before the first semi- automatic weapon was made and before anyone even had the conception that a fully-automatic rifle with 20+ pieces of death in it would be purchasable by pretty much any adult.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Key word here being Militia. Rarely do you see people buying and amassing weapons for non military and non police groups to keep their communities safe. What we do see instead is that mostly every time it is individuals buying and using weapons. Another key word here also would be regulated. Its referring to groups and organizations, not just people as in anybody and everybody. The second amendment almost never, ever applies when talking about gun use or ownership by individuals. It applies only when talking about individuals within an organized militia owning weapons.

 

[TheWatersGreatGuardian]

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.

If you are going to restrict it, force more gun safety protocols, stringent background checks, etc before you allow someone to purchase guns. But again, that won't do any good for people who don't abide by the law. Like I said, gun control is an illusion. it would not work.

 

[EmphaticPikachu]

If you are going to restrict it, force more gun safety protocols, stringent background checks, etc before you allow someone to purchase guns. But again, that won't do any good for people who don't abide by the law. Like I said, gun control is an illusion. it would not work

Not entirly an illusion. My gosh, if you think about it, SO many things could be done in the world that have laws for them. The difference is how hard it is to get them, and the consequences waiting for them. Thats what effects their thought process. If they already didn't care about the fact they're gonna die or something afterwards, or that its THAT hard to get a gun, then they're gonna get one anyway.

We're trying to lessen the problem here. Its obvious that stricter gun control laws have worked other places. So there's validity to the thought AT LEAST am I right?

 

[Spock]

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're aware people can build guns even without the advent of your Star Trek replicators right

 

[Cipher]

Like I said, gun control is an illusion. it would not work.

Why has it statistically correlated with lower gun-related homicide rates and fewer mass shootings worldwide then?

Guys, if you feel like you really have a differing opinion to contribute, please do. But if you're just going to be contradictory and not even respond to the links in the first post, don't bother. I don't want to keep responding to the same cliche arguments with the same pieces of evidence over and over again, but I will.

Your opinion has been noted and addressed in the opening post. Please read and educate yourself, and come back if you still think you have something new to say.

 

[Excitable Boy]

So

How about both a ban on semi-automatics

and make it more difficult for people with mental health problems to obtain guns

I doubt anyone here thinks either of these two ideas would increase shootings, would they? Ineffective, maybe, but not outright negative.

 

[Kacho]

(Might as well talk about US's approach to mental health issues, which is basically drugging people and hope it works...)

 

[EmphaticPikachu]

(Might as well talk about US's approach to mental health issues, which is basically drugging people and hope it works...)

...that is a very interesting subject.

do elaborate.

I'm curious.

 

[BigLutz]

@BigLutz 1) Never gonna happen cos we have strict gun laws and stupidity isn't part of our constitution.

And how will either of those prevent a person from making a gun through a 3D printer?

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.

A: The attacker cannot focus in 360 degrees, he or she has no idea where the Concealed Gun is. B: Concealed Guns are already loaded. C: Those taking Concealed Gun classes are trained on how to shoot them.

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.

No there isn't, but nor is there anything rosey about banning guns under the law while allowing a black market of guns to thrive.

 

[Cipher]

BigLutz, do you have an argument that doesn't involve the phrase "3D printer," or are the facts that substantial change is needed actually so clear by now that even you can only disagree in increments?

(Might as well talk about US's approach to mental health issues, which is basically drugging people and hope it works...)

Sure, we can talk about that too, but I'd prefer it not take up too much space here. As I said last page, it's not a mutually exclusive issue. We can improve gun control and mental health support. But right now we (and most of the country) are discussing gun control because it should be the most immediate concern for reasons I expressed one page back.

That said, there's plenty of excellent talk all over the Internet now about how we treat our mentally ill and how we provide preventative care as well.

 

[BigLutz]

BigLutz, do you have an argument that doesn't involve the phrase "3D printer," or are the facts that substantial change is needed actually so clear by now that even you can only disagree in increments?

It is something that needs to be addressed as a functional gun has been created. But for the U.S. we can also focus on the fact we have a massive open border that has facilitated in the transportation of illegal goods for the last century. Banning drugs did not stop the black market, banning alcohol did not stop the black market. How are guns any bit different?

 

[Spock]

[img139]http://r33.cooltext.com/rendered/cooltext856758016.gif[/img139]

but seriously, to the people saying this isn't the right time to discuss gun control: when is? three weeks after the media circus dies down and nobody cares anymore? the days before the shooting when it didn't cross anyone's mind because there were no bodies with bullets in them? pray tell, were we one day away from sitting down and talking about the state of guns in America and now this shooter's restarted the fictitious clock you've installed to avoid having to take responsibility for the lack of proper gun control? i'm seriously interested in knowing.

 

[Snorunt conservationist]

No.

Do you want to know why the country (my country, the United States, where you don't live) exploded with gun control talks Friday? Because after more than three mass shootings in less than six months, because after we witnessed a horrible tragedy no one wants to see again, the only thing to do is to ask why it happened and what can be done to prevent it in the future.

Ezra Klein said it well in a Friday piece for the Washington Post: "Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not. 'Too soon,' howl supporters of loose gun laws. But as others have observed, talking about how to stop mass shootings in the aftermath of a string of mass shootings isn’t 'too soon.' It’s much too late."

At any rate, it's Sunday now. Do you feel like continuing to be pedantic and contribute nothing to a discussion about another country's problems, or do you want to actually engage in some legitimate discourse?

It wasn't when you posted.

I don't think that pointing out the fact you are using the very recent (as in, when you posted the initial post of the thread less than 24 hours after they had died) deaths of 20 children to promote your cause is contributing nothing. In all honesty, I condemn everyone who has posted to argue either side of the argument in this case. It's nothing short of disgusting. I don't even think these children have had a funeral yet, but it's you who have sought to use their deaths at a time of heightened emotions to simplify a complex issue. You bear the brunt of criticism.

I don't say this to argue either side of the debate.

It wouldn't have taken much restraint for everyone in this thread who has sought to make arguments about the rights and wrongs of gun control in the light of events to wait a week or so.

 

[EmphaticPikachu]

[img139]http://r33.cooltext.com/rendered/cooltext856758016.gif[/img139]

but seriously, to the people saying this isn't the right time to discuss gun control: when is? three weeks after the media circus dies down and nobody cares anymore? the days before the shooting when it didn't cross anyone's mind because there were no bodies with bullets in them? pray tell, were we one day away from sitting down and talking about the state of guns in America and now this shooter's restarted the fictitious clock you've installed to avoid having to take responsibility for the lack of proper gun control? i'm seriously interested in knowing.

...I would agree with this. WHen is the right time?

Granted I understand that there are many things going on, but to be quite frank we procrastinate on a lot of problems. Throwing them away and ignoring them. Prioritizing is a good thing, yet continuing to prioritize when we aren't getting crap done just leads to a standstill.

 

[Manna]

It wasn't when you posted.

I don't think that pointing out the fact you are using the very recent (as in, when you posted the initial post of the thread less than 24 hours after they had died) deaths of 20 children to promote your cause is contributing nothing. In all honesty, I condemn everyone who has posted to argue either side of the argument in this case. It's nothing short of disgusting. I don't even think these children have had a funeral yet, but it's you who have sought to use their deaths at a time of heightened emotions to simplify a complex issue. You bear the brunt of criticism.

I don't say this to argue either side of the debate.

It wouldn't have taken much restraint for everyone in this thread who has sought to make arguments about the rights and wrongs of gun control in the light of events to wait a week or so.

When no one cares anymore? Cool.

Yup. Let's just sit here and do nothing and wait till the next mass shooting occurs. Yahoo.

 

[BigLutz]

but seriously, to the people saying this isn't the right time to discuss gun control: when is? three weeks after the media circus dies down and nobody cares anymore? the days before the shooting when it didn't cross anyone's mind because there were no bodies with bullets in them? pray tell, were we one day away from sitting down and talking about the state of guns in America and now this shooter's restarted the fictitious clock you've installed to avoid having to take responsibility for the lack of proper gun control? i'm seriously interested in knowing.

Should we not talk about Gun Control when having such laws would prevent the shooting? The guy stole the guns from his mom, some one who by all accounts would legally be allowed to own such guns. Tacking gun control blindly to every shooting even when any change would not have stopped it, does a disservice to the real issue we should be looking at: How to help the Mentally Ill

 

[EmphaticPikachu]

It wasn't when you posted.

I don't think that pointing out the fact you are using the very recent (as in, when you posted the initial post of the thread less than 24 hours after they had died) deaths of 20 children to promote your cause is contributing nothing. In all honesty, I condemn everyone who has posted to argue either side of the argument in this case. It's nothing short of disgusting. I don't even think these children have had a funeral yet, but it's you who have sought to use their deaths at a time of heightened emotions to simplify a complex issue. You bear the brunt of criticism.

I don't say this to argue either side of the debate.

It wouldn't have taken much restraint for everyone in this thread who has sought to make arguments about the rights and wrongs of gun control in the light of events to wait a week or so.

In light of the above post, I have to say that I at least believe that I'm arguing here because I believe it will help them ._...I'm a 17 year old with no party affilation yet, I'm doing it because I believe it will help them more in the long run then just moruning the deaths. And what Cifala and Manna says is true...when is? Once the emotion dies down, no one pushes anymore. Think of my actions as you will, but don't tell me I'm doing this to support a party or goal for myself or my friends. I'm doing it to hopefully prevent the problems or lessen them.

 

[Cipher]

I don't think that pointing out the fact you are using the very recent (as in, when you posted the initial post of the thread less than 24 hours after they had died) deaths of 20 children to promote your cause is contributing nothing. In all honesty, I condemn everyone who has posted to argue either side of the argument in this case. It's nothing short of disgusting. I don't even think these children have had a funeral yet, but it's you who have sought to use their deaths at a time of heightened emotions to simplify a complex issue. You bear the brunt of criticism.

It wouldn't have taken much restraint for everyone in this thread who has sought to make arguments about the rights and wrongs of gun control in the light of events to wait a week or so.

http://gawker.com/5968571/actually-now-is-the-time-to-talk-politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I'm not responding to this again.

 

[Peter Quill]

It wasn't when you posted.

I don't think that pointing out the fact you are using the very recent (as in, when you posted the initial post of the thread less than 24 hours after they had died) deaths of 20 children to promote your cause is contributing nothing. In all honesty, I condemn everyone who has posted to argue either side of the argument in this case. It's nothing short of disgusting. I don't even think these children have had a funeral yet, but it's you who have sought to use their deaths at a time of heightened emotions to simplify a complex issue. You bear the brunt of criticism.

I don't say this to argue either side of the debate.

It wouldn't have taken much restraint for everyone in this thread who has sought to make arguments about the rights and wrongs of gun control in the light of events to wait a week or so.

You know, part of me would have agreed with you if it wasn't for the fact that we would use the exact same argument for the Aurora shooting. I'm all for respect for the victims involved, but it's just from my experiences that if we don't discuss it when it happens and say that we'll "put it off a week" or whathaveyou, that we never actually get around to discussing it at all. I think that America is starting to understand that this discussion should have happened a long time ago, and while the timing is quite unfortunate for the victims involved, it's also because of the gravity of the situation that people are finally understanding that this is a situation that needs to be adressed.