# Guns



## wizard (Oct 2, 2017)

How do you feel about guns?


----------



## Mink777 (Oct 2, 2017)

Don't ban them.


----------



## Paxx (Oct 2, 2017)

a good defense weapon when you're in trouble, but it's not the greatest feeling when you're on the other side of the barrel 

seriously though, where i live, we have one of the highest crime rates. be careful out there ya'll


----------



## xSuperMario64x (Oct 2, 2017)

They are a given right, and should not be taken away. The ability to own a gun is a freedom won for we American citizens, and taking away that right not only gives the government more power (which goes against what the US government stands for), but it takes away our rights.

In other words, _don't ban them._


----------



## Nightstar (Oct 2, 2017)

I'm a Canadian. We have pretty great gun control laws and surprise surprise, there are far fewer mass shootings. ?\_(ツ)_/?


----------



## cornimer (Oct 2, 2017)

I think they should be banned in the States or at least regulated far more strictly. In other countries like Canada, the U.K., Australia and Japan with stricter gun laws there are waaaay less shootings than in the States, and not many people up here (Canada) as far as I know carry around guns for defense but we're fine, or at least way more fine than the States. If guns are banned, then there isn't as much a _need_ for that level of defense. I know majority of gun owners are safe with their guns but at this point is it really worth the risk? People's safety is more important than whatever reason people "need" guns for (and yes self defense is also important but again, if guns are banned there won't be as much a need for self defense!!! And honestly it's not like in a situation like last night someone in the crowd could've saved people in any way by having a gun)


----------



## Ably.Saucey (Oct 2, 2017)

Option 2-3 make no sense, banning guns at all makes no sense criminals will still kill, most weapons used by the mentally ill and criminals are stolen, and people will commit suicide by other means. 
It's a people problem, not a weapon problem.
 More people are killed by blunt force objects (bats, hammers,shovels) than guns.
And most shootings in the US, are in areas with the strictest gun laws. (Detroit, for example).
Banning guns just take guns out of the hands of honest people. Criminals will find guns if they want them.


----------



## DarkDesertFox (Oct 2, 2017)

For those who actually do believe in banning guns, I don't see how it's any different from when America banned alcohol. It didn't do jack ****. People still found ways to drink their booze the same way people will find ways to acquire guns. Say you did magically take away guns from criminals. Remember that mass stabbing in China that left 29 dead and over a hundred wounded? People will always find a way to kill.


----------



## wizard (Oct 2, 2017)

Ably.Saucey said:


> Option 2-3 make no sense, banning guns at all makes no sense criminals will still kill, most weapons used by the mentally ill and criminals are stolen, and people will commit suicide by other means.
> It's a people problem, not a weapon problem.
> More people are killed by blunt force objects (bats, hammers,shovels) than guns.
> And most shootings in the US, are in areas with the strictest gun laws. (Detroit, for example).
> Banning guns just take guns out of the hands of honest people. Criminals will find guns if they want them.



By criminals I meant people with a criminal record.


----------



## xSuperMario64x (Oct 2, 2017)

Ably.Saucey said:


> Option 2-3 make no sense, banning guns at all makes no sense criminals will still kill, most weapons used by the mentally ill and criminals are stolen, and people will commit suicide by other means.
> It's a people problem, not a weapon problem.
> More people are killed by blunt force objects (bats, hammers,shovels) than guns.
> And most shootings in the US, are in areas with the strictest gun laws. (Detroit, for example).
> Banning guns just take guns out of the hands of honest people. Criminals will find guns if they want them.





DarkDesertFox said:


> For those who actually do believe in banning guns, I don't see how it's any different from when America banned alcohol. It didn't do jack ****. People still found ways to drink their booze the same way people will find ways to acquire guns. Say you did magically take away guns from criminals. Remember that mass stabbing in China that left 29 dead and over a hundred wounded? People will always find a way to kill.



These statements are absolutely 100% right. Banning guns won't reduce crime; if anything, it'll make crime even worse. 

Laws only restrict people who follow the law. In this case, if guns are illegal, the good people will obey the law and not have a gun, but the criminals will still find a way to get one. And since the law-followers have no gun to defend themselves with, who's got it worse?

I don't think banning guns is the answer at all. It's not gonna stop mass shootings from happening.


----------



## Nightstar (Oct 2, 2017)

xSuperMario64x said:


> I don't think banning guns is the answer at all. It's not gonna stop mass shootings from happening.



Except that it absolutely would. Not entirely, of course, but it would take the stats down by an insane amount. Just look up stats. Quoting from this Guardian article: "The United States’s gun homicide rate is 25 times higher than other high-income countries, according to a recent study." 25 times! That's insane! 

For those who are visual learners, here's a chart.






Gun control works. And the second amendment thing was written when it was muskets and gun powder, not rapid fire assault rifles.


----------



## Bowie (Oct 2, 2017)

"People will do it anyway" is such a dumb excuse. Murder happens despite the fact it's illegal, but does that mean we should legalise murder because "it won't make a difference"?


----------



## xSuperMario64x (Oct 2, 2017)

Bowie said:


> "People will do it anyway" is such a dumb excuse. Murder happens despite the fact it's illegal, but does that mean we should legalise murder because "it won't make a difference"?



Who said it was legal lol


----------



## N e s s (Oct 2, 2017)

I like turtles u~u


----------



## Bowie (Oct 2, 2017)

xSuperMario64x said:


> Who said it was legal lol



You said banning guns won't stop mass shootings.

Banning murder doesn't stop mass murder, but that doesn't mean you don't do anything about it.


----------



## oath2order (Oct 2, 2017)

VanessaMay18 said:


> I think they should be banned in the States or at least regulated far more strictly. In other countries like Canada, the U.K., Australia and Japan with stricter gun laws there are waaaay less shootings than in the States, and not many people up here (Canada) as far as I know carry around guns for defense but we're fine, or at least way more fine than the States. If guns are banned, then there isn't as much a _need_ for that level of defense. I know majority of gun owners are safe with their guns but at this point is it really worth the risk? People's safety is more important than whatever reason people "need" guns for (and yes self defense is also important but again, if guns are banned there won't be as much a need for self defense!!! And honestly it's not like in a situation like last night someone in the crowd could've saved people in any way by having a gun)



I mean, I do see the point that the right-wing makes. It's a lot easier to control guns in the UK, Australia, and Japan, because they're islands.

That said, if America made even the slightest amount of effort...



Nightstar said:


> Except that it absolutely would. Not entirely, of course, but it would take the stats down by an insane amount. Just look up stats. Quoting from this Guardian article: "The United States?s gun homicide rate is 25 times higher than other high-income countries, according to a recent study." 25 times! That's insane!
> 
> For those who are visual learners, here's a chart.
> 
> ...



I was not aware of those other statistics.

I can agree that we should be allowed to own guns. Hunting rifles, pistols, fine. But I mean, I don't particularly understand the people who need full-automatics to go hunting. Exactly how bad of a shot are these people?


----------



## seliph (Oct 2, 2017)

The only guns we need are THESE *flexes*


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Oct 2, 2017)

Poll Option #8 is the only correct option here.

And yes, I voted 2, 3, 4, and 8. One of them because if you abuse them, you lose them. Another, you don’t want to put them in the wrong hands. Same for the other option. And Option #8, I would feel wrong if I didn’t vote it.


----------



## DJStarstryker (Oct 2, 2017)

Honestly, I'm glad I'm not a politician and therefore don't have to deal with this. I agree with others that banning guns could lead to Prohibition-type problems (but probably worse). But on the other hand, I'm sick of the shootings. Both civilians shooting other civilians and cops shooting civilians need to stop.


----------



## Yuzu (Oct 2, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> For those who actually do believe in banning guns, I don't see how it's any different from when America banned alcohol. It didn't do jack ****. People still found ways to drink their booze the same way people will find ways to acquire guns. Say you did magically take away guns from criminals. Remember that mass stabbing in China that left 29 dead and over a hundred wounded? People will always find a way to kill.



Comparing the illegalization of alcohol to that of guns does not correlate at all. America's blind eye to drug and alcohol addiction is deeply rooted in the cause for domestic gun violence in America.

--

I usually avoid political topics but some of these answers make me so.. angry.
Someone please tell me why everyone should have access to assault combat weapons that have 30-bullet magazines? IN WHAT SITUATION would you need that kind of fire power to defend yourself? Not even hunters for sport use those kinds of weapons. 

For the "it's a people problem, not a weapon problem, and people will find a way to kill anyways": 

If it is a people problem, it's because of factors WAY bigger than which weapons are used. In a country where there is such inaccessible and expensive health care for people with undiagnosed mental health issues, guns shouldn't be just handed out to anyone, let alone combat assault weapons. And even more importantly, poverty and drug misuse are also two of the bigger factors in gun crime. It's a country problem when we have the highest rates of gun violence and most privately-held guns than any other developed country in the world. When you think adding more guns to the equation is going to suddenly counter-act the threat of guns that already exist, that's just backwards. Unless something changes socio-economically, this is not going to magically be the last mass shooting in America.


Now if you'll excuse me, i have some birthday cake to finish.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Oct 2, 2017)

Ably.Saucey said:


> Option 2-3 make no sense, banning guns at all makes no sense criminals will still kill, most weapons used by the mentally ill and criminals are stolen, and people will commit suicide by other means.
> It's a people problem, not a weapon problem.
> More people are killed by blunt force objects (bats, hammers,shovels) than guns.
> And most shootings in the US, are in areas with the strictest gun laws. (Detroit, for example).
> Banning guns just take guns out of the hands of honest people. Criminals will find guns if they want them.



Louisiana has the highest murder rate in America. And their gun laws are almost nothing. But the only way to reduce the gun homicide rate in Louisiana is...better spending in education and better education in morals. California’s murder rate is also pretty high, and they have the strictest gun laws in America.


----------



## oath2order (Oct 2, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> better spending in education and better education in morals..



Which morals


----------



## nintendofan85 (Oct 2, 2017)

I do not want guns getting in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.


----------



## 50m4ra (Oct 2, 2017)

Ably.Saucey said:


> Option 2-3 make no sense, banning guns at all makes no sense criminals will still kill, most weapons used by the mentally ill and criminals are stolen, and people will commit suicide by other means.
> It's a people problem, not a weapon problem.
> More people are killed by blunt force objects (bats, hammers,shovels) than guns.
> And most shootings in the US, are in areas with the strictest gun laws. (Detroit, for example).
> Banning guns just take guns out of the hands of honest people. Criminals will find guns if they want them.



This is it as in a nutshell.


----------



## Octaviian (Oct 2, 2017)

Ban all guns.
Unfortunately, that probably isn't realistic these days, so the next best choice would be to make them extremely difficult to purchase!


----------



## KaydeeKrunk (Oct 3, 2017)

No guns.
And yeah, I'm pretty sure I like turtles.


----------



## Stalfos (Oct 3, 2017)

If nothing else, at least ban machine guns. Their only purpose is to kill on mass scale.


----------



## wizard (Oct 3, 2017)

Stalfos said:


> If nothing else, at least ban machine guns. Their only purpose is to kill on mass scale.



Oh yeah, I forgot to put that option.


----------



## deSPIRIA (Oct 9, 2017)

i dont like guns, i just fear them, but i think people need them


----------



## namiieco (Oct 9, 2017)

ban all guns
it's not going to solve everything but it's gonna help imo
i feel safer here in england


----------



## mayortiffany (Oct 9, 2017)

I live in Canada, where there are some pretty strict restrictions on guns. At least where I am, we don't see too many shootings. On a whole, we don't have many mass shootings, and if we do, the fatalities usually aren't above 10. The last one we had was earlier this year at a mosque in Quebec City where someone opened fire on worshippers. The largest in recent history killed 15 (including the perpetrator), which is nothing when compared to the United States. 

I understand that people would like to be able to carry guns, but I believe that restrictions on owning guns makes society safer as a whole. Having lived in a country that has strict gun control, I can see the benefits of it. Here, people are still able to have guns if they like, it's just a lengthier process, but we are able to prevent more tragedies by having gun control regulations. 

I hope the United States decides to examine gun control measures to avoid tragedies like Las Vegas, Orlando, and San Bernardino. I think they could really make a difference, although judging by the culture of the US, I'm not sure if they'd ever be possible, which saddens me. Even though we are neighbours, the United States and Canada have very different cultures.


----------



## Strawberryllama (Oct 9, 2017)

Ban all guns. It's not going to totally eliminate the problem, but it will drastically reduce it. Yes, it was a right given to us, but change happens. Times have drastically changed.


----------



## satine (Oct 9, 2017)

Banning them would only mean that people will purchase them illegally, lmao. It's kind of a moot point. Just tighten up the restrictions -- a lot. But don't ban them, which would go against the Constitution. That would cause a huge riot and then, people would start buying them illegally that wouldn't' have before they were banned and the illegal firearm economy would blossom far larger than it is today.


----------



## Hopeless Opus (Oct 9, 2017)

australia had one mass shooting, immediately banned guns, and haven't had anything like that happen since.
i know that people kill people but this could help us greatly. there was genuinely NO reason for a single man to be able to bring in so many guns to a hotel, fully loaded. these tragedies will not stop until a restriction or a complete ban is done. something NEEDS to happen. i'm sick of seeing innocent people die for no good ****ing reason.


----------



## seliph (Oct 9, 2017)

Strawberryllama said:


> Yes, it was a right given to us, but change happens.


I'm really glad you mentioned this because "it's a right" has to be the dumbest argument for gun control. It was also a right to own slaves like did people really forget about that



Marshlovski said:


> Banning them would only mean that people will purchase them illegally, lmao. It's kind of a moot point. Just tighten up the restrictions -- a lot. But don't ban them, which would go against the Constitution. That would cause a huge riot and then, people would start buying them illegally that wouldn't' have before they were banned and the illegal firearm economy would blossom far larger than it is today.



"Banning them would only mean that people will purchase them illegally, lmao." - Putting a ban on them would still make it drastically harder for people to obtain them and will thus reduce the amount of people with guns and therefore reduce the amount of gun violence. I don't know why people think this is a point.

"But don't ban them, which would go against the Constitution." - I've said this before but the constitution was made when the only guns being carried around were old muskets that could carry 1 bullet. Machine guns weren't even a plausibility at the time.

Also... who ****ing cares? Boo hoo, people want to rewrite these stupid old laws by a bunch of racist slave owners, what ever will we do?

"That would cause a huge riot and then, people would start buying them illegally that wouldn't' have before they were banned" - They might try but honestly I'm willing to bet most of the people who throw giant hissyfits about their guns aren't nearly smart enough to obtain one illegally anyways.


----------



## King Dorado (Oct 9, 2017)

I doubt these mass murderers would have gone out and gotten illegal guns to implement their sick plans.  they always seem to be carried out with legally obtained weapons.  

how many armed criminals are killed in self defense by armed citizens every year anyhow?  i'm guessing very few.

in other words, my belief is that mass murder would go way down if guns were better restricted in this country, and that so-called "crimes of passion" would too.

- - - Post Merge - - -

and those two benefits would outweigh any detriment of having less guns available in the general populace...


----------



## Damniel (Oct 9, 2017)

I don’t think we’re gonna have another great american revolution anytime soon so anything more than a handgun or maybe shotgun arent needed. You don’t need an assault rifle to defend yourself 

Also the options are pretty silly 

People give up a lot of rights like voting when being convicted of a crime, ofc having a gun is one of those rights taken away. People on suicide watch aren’t allowed to have any kind of weapons anyways. People who say they don’t care about gun laws and it doesnt affect them are actually stupid bc it’s a very important topic to at least be aware of. And saying guns shouldn’t be accessible to criminals is the same as option 2


----------



## mitfy (Oct 9, 2017)

i don't really wanna see too many threads on this since this is just a forum for an innocent nintendo game but. i suppose i could give my opinion.



Strawberryllama said:


> Ban all guns. It's not going to totally eliminate the problem, but it will drastically reduce it. Yes, it was a right given to us, but change happens. Times have drastically changed.



i agree with this. things change. it's been OVER 200 YEARS since the constitution was made. you think about what this country was doing in the late 18th century, and not much of it was good. we cannot continue to hold a country to the same outdated rules and systems. we don't need the electoral college anymore. we don't need to carry around guns anymore. 

look at the countries with strict gun laws, where you can only buy a gun after strict training and sessions and whatnot... the number of deaths by shootings compared to the US is _more_ than significant. 

last year, far too close for comfort, the country's deadliest mass shooting occurred. i woke up alone with my mom called to the news station, my dad out donating blood, and the only noise proving me company was the news, left on in a rush to leave. i woke up and mere miles from where i was sleeping soundly that night, more people died due to guns and hate crimes than ever before in US history. hate crimes against people like me no less. people like me and my friends. i woke up confused and sad and scared because a small building that i'd passed many times before suddenly made national headlines, and not for a good reason.

just within the last week the record's been broken. that's not a record that SHOULD be broken. i'm not upset that pulse is "no longer getting attention" or whatever, i'm upset that there's a new number one in the first place. i can't even bear to look at the news.



Spoiler



i don't even want to get into my friend's situation. she abruptly lost her father at age 14 because he was shot. just someone trying to rob him on the job. i've silently watched as her life at home gets more unbearable for her.



god. i don't believe in guns. i don't care how hard they'll be to get. the harder it is to get a weapon, the less people that'll die. if this country just can't bear to part with their beloved murder machines then put as many restrictions as possible. make them harder to get than the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. idk about you guys but i'm tired of being scared and i'm tired of seeing people die.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Damniel said:


> I don’t think we’re gonna have another great american revolution anytime soon so anything more than a handgun or maybe shotgun are needed. You don’t need an assault rifle to defend yourself
> 
> Also the options are pretty silly
> 
> People give up a lot of rights like voting when being convicted of a crime, ofc having a gun is one of those rights taken away. People on suicide watch aren’t allowed to have any kind of weapons anyways. People who say they don’t care about gun laws and it doesnt affect them are actually stupid bc it’s a very important topic to at least be aware of. And saying guns shouldn’t be accessible to criminals is the same as option 2



i agree with this as well. especially the first paragraph.

and also, when it comes to mentally ill people, not all mentally ill people are dangerous and going to shoot people. obviously. but the problem is that most often than not, the dangerous ones, the ones who are unstable and a threat to themselves or those around them might be undiagnosed, unregistered. i don't think it's just as simple as "don't let the mentally ill have guns" because you don't know about it until it's on the news.


----------



## rbell2915 (Oct 10, 2017)

Banning guns just makes it so that criminals are the only ones to have guns, which they already aquire through illegal means. 

Most gun related crimes/murders are gang-related, with handguns anyway.
There's a gang problem. 

I think it's so funny when high and mighty European countries scoff at us for our rights, yet vehicular, knife, and bomb attacks are in the news at a pretty constant stream from the other side of the pond. 

Should we ban trucks after the attack at Nice, France? 

The second amendment was written for self defense against criminals and a tyrannical government.

- - - Post Merge - - -

Lol @ people who think just because time and technology changes, your rights should erode away. 

The second amendment was written when muskets were the prevalent weapon, so in their minds anything more modern than a weapon built in 1776 is evil. 

Should the freedom of speech apply strictly to books, newspapers, and pamphlets? They didn't have the internet back then, so why should the first amendment apply to that? 

*Facepalm*


----------



## seliph (Oct 10, 2017)

rbell2915 said:


> I think it's so funny when high and mighty European countries scoff at us for our rights, yet vehicular, knife, and bomb attacks are in the news at a pretty constant stream from the other side of the pond.



Vehicles are for transportation. Knives are for cooking. There's no use for guns other than killing and you hear way, way, way more about US shootings than European bomb attacks (not to mention you've got bomb attacks too) and bombs are, you guessed it, illegal.


----------



## rbell2915 (Oct 10, 2017)

gyro said:


> Vehicles are for transportation. Knives are for cooking. There's no use for guns other than killing and you hear way, way, way more about US shootings than European bomb attacks (not to mention you've got bomb attacks too) and bombs are, you guessed it, illegal.



Obviously they are used for transportation and cooking, which proves the point if someone wants to kill someone, they will use whatever is available to commit their crime. 

There are videos of European police officers running from knife attackers, how can you trust your life to someone who can barely protect themselves? 

Do you think women who are raped shouldn't be allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves? 
Do you think that robbery victims with guns in their face should just surrender and trust their lives to someone willing to kill them over $50?


----------



## Soraru (Oct 10, 2017)

i consider gun ownership to be much more a privilege rather than an "right" 

I'm hearing both "gun control/banning guns reduces gun crime" coming from people who live in countries who banned guns and confirms its effective, contrary to the "gun control/banning guns increases gun crime" coming from americans who are pro-gun.

LOL i think the ones who experienced it has a clear higher value and validity of their opinion than the other. also, look at countries like japan, canada, australia and others. they have low gun violence rates because of their strict gun laws. 

its disappointing that some americans put more effort to express entitlement of owning a something that was created for the purpose of killing/harming, rather than care about gun violence and gun crime rates, and hold compassion for victims of gun violence. but hey, its america. moral standards and priorities haven't changed or gotten that much better since the past hundreds of years. we ironically, dont even live up to our motto, (although "gimmick" is a much more accurate definition) "liberty and justice for all"


----------



## seliph (Oct 10, 2017)

rbell2915 said:


> Obviously they are used for transportation and cooking, which proves the point if someone wants to kill someone, they will use whatever is available to commit their crime.
> 
> There are videos of European police officers running from knife attackers, how can you trust your life to someone who can barely protect themselves?
> 
> ...



"If someone comes at you with a gun you need to protect yourself" Okay so you're admitting that the problem is indeed guns. Thanks. Good job dude.
Also you realize getting a driver's license and a car/truck takes more time and has more legal requirements & paperwork than getting a gun, right?

I don't know how you can point fingers at videos of other countries' police officers when there's videos of american cops pulling out their _guns_ because a black kid wore a hoodie or ran a red light or literally just existed in their presence. Running from someone with a knife is pretty reasonable but if you're threatened by someone for something completely non life-threatening that's pathetic.

On another note how dare you bring rape victims into this.


----------



## rbell2915 (Oct 10, 2017)

gyro said:


> "If someone comes at you with a gun you need to protect yourself" Okay so you're admitting that the problem is indeed guns. Thanks. Good job dude.
> Also you realize getting a driver's license and a car/truck takes more time and has more legal requirements & paperwork than getting a gun, right?
> 
> I don't know how you can point fingers at videos of other countries' police officers when there's videos of american cops pulling out their _guns_ because a black kid wore a hoodie or ran a red light or literally just existed in their presence. Running from someone with a knife is pretty reasonable but if you're threatened by someone for something completely non life-threatening that's pathetic.
> ...



1) Criminals are always going to have guns, genius.
Why is it that place with incredibly high gun control tend to have higher crime? 

2) Driving is a privilege, not a right.

And *how dare you* for thinking that people do not have the right to defend themselves.
Why is it that only the elite celebrities and politicians should have armed guards around them?
Is the little person, such as you, me, and everyone else, not worth it in your eyes?

I think my life is worth fighting for.
Obviously, you don't.


----------



## Mu~ (Oct 10, 2017)

Ban all guns and only let people buy non-deadly weapons. Maybe with rubber bullets or paralyzing guns.


----------



## seliph (Oct 10, 2017)

rbell2915 said:


> 1) Criminals are always going to have guns, genius.
> Why is it that place with incredibly high gun control tend to have higher crime?
> 
> 2) Driving is a privilege, not a right.
> ...



1. No... they aren't? Not if you make it harder for them to get them?
????????????

As for crime rates... you sure you wanna boast about that buddy? The states are pretty up there especially when it comes to guns.

2. Driving being a privilege or a right has nothing to do with this. The point is getting a murder weapon should not be easier than getting a car, or a pack of cigarettes, or alcohol, or a lottery ticket, or

I never said people don't have the right to defend themselves. I said your country has a gun problem and yet refuses to do away with guns. The most obvious, logical answer to "Well what if someone comes at you with a gun?" would be to make it harder for them to get said guns yet so many people can't see that for some reason. I also never said anything about armed guards or celebrities or politicians but keep replying to crap that isn't there to make yourself feel better I guess.

There's no need to act like you're someone high and mighty who fights off dudes everyday when you're just someone with an internet connection.


----------



## Zane (Oct 10, 2017)

rbell2915 said:


> Do you think women who are raped shouldn't be allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves?
> Do you think that robbery victims with guns in their face should just surrender and trust their lives to someone willing to kill them over $50?



in cases of rape I'm like 150% sure the problem wasn't that the victim didn't have a gun.. I can't believe people actually say such completely asinine things like this


----------



## visibleghost (Oct 10, 2017)

rbell2915 said:


> Obviously they are used for transportation and cooking, which proves the point if someone wants to kill someone, they will use whatever is available to commit their crime.
> 
> There are videos of European police officers running from knife attackers, how can you trust your life to someone who can barely protect themselves?
> 
> ...


lmao "people will commit crimes anyways so why should we try to stop it, also it is my god given right to commit murder if i feel threathened"


----------



## Alienfish (Oct 10, 2017)

Ban them. 

Or at least heavily revamp that bs US system where you can but them in your everyday grocery store. All this amendment **** is just.. why even write that in.


----------



## visibleghost (Oct 10, 2017)

rbell2915 said:


> 1) Criminals are always going to have guns, genius.
> Why is it that place with incredibly high gun control tend to have higher crime?
> 
> 2) Driving is a privilege, not a right.
> ...



if youre so worried about your own safety why do you want people to have guns. even if someone would still have a gun youre more likely to be involved in gun related crime if 70 percent of people have guns than if only 10 percent have guns

dfkhjdfgxfhxg also "if someone shoots me or anyone else i should shoot them!!! dont worry about safety guys because if someone shoots u i will shoot them in return :')" is the most american thing ...


----------



## Alienfish (Oct 10, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> dfkhjdfgxfhxg also "if someone shoots me or anyone else i should shoot them!!! dont worry about safety guys because if someone shoots u i will shoot them in return :')" is the most american thing ...



Yeah, lolol. 

Also why even bring driving into this (or other things as above)? Of course driving is something you must learn correctly, and it costs so yes therefore it's a privilege, a bad one since it's so expensive and like 80% of jobs require that anyway unless you are very rich and can hire your own chauffeur.

And yes criminals will probably have weapons because they have contacts and know to get them, captain obvious up there.


----------



## rbell2915 (Oct 10, 2017)

gyro said:


> 1. No... they aren't? Not if you make it harder for them to get them?
> ????????????
> 
> As for crime rates... you sure you wanna boast about that buddy? The states are pretty up there especially when it comes to guns.
> ...



I wrote a very lengthy response to this, but I lost it. So here we go again.

Your first link is on total gun crimes, not even per capita. So if you adjust the rates per population, America drops from 1 to 22.
It's basically expected for countries with higher populations to have more crimes. 

Your second link states that America is at rank 10 in murders committed with firearms. At least it's per capita this time, but most of those murders are drug related anyway in America. 

Your third link is complete irrelevant any because it's based on the survey-takers subject views.

Read this.

And obviously you believe that all guns are bad, no matter who has them or not. No matter how hard you try to ban guns, there's this little thing called the black market that criminals like to use to get things they aren't allowed to have. 

And I know you didn't bring up politicians or celebrities. I was asking a question that I wanted you to answer. This is a discussion.
Do you think that politicians and celebrities along with other elitists should be the only ones with guards with guns to protect themselves?
What about you and me and everyone else who has no one else to protect us but ourselves?
I don't know about you, but I would carry a gun to ensure my safety and that of my families. 
I even carry a rifle to protect my nation. 

It's okay for you to think that the police will always be there to protect you, but they are nearly always not going to be there instantly. People who are on the receiving end of a crime, whether it be an assault, robbery, or sex crime will always have to rely upon themselves. 



Zane said:


> in cases of rape I'm like 150% sure the problem wasn't that the victim didn't have a gun.. I can't believe people actually say such completely asinine things like this



You don't even need a gun to commit a sexual crime like that. What I'm saying is that if the victim has a firearm to protect themselves, the rape wouldn't have happened. Nice try cherry picking my words though.



visibleghost said:


> lmao "people will commit crimes anyways so why should we try to stop it, also it is my god given right to commit murder if i feel threathened"



I don't even know why I'm bothering to reply to you, but there is a difference between murder and killing someone in self-defense. *eye roll*


----------



## Weiland (Oct 10, 2017)

The fundamental flaw is basically the case of Stephen Paddock. No one knew he was mentally ill, a criminal or had access to all those firearms. Same with Randy Stair -- no one knew he'd commit a massacre (somehow, because he made it v obvious lol), nor did they know he was suicidal. I don't know, the USA could ban semi-automatics and shotguns and keep only some rifles and pistols around, for hunting purposes. It's what Australia did and we've not had a mass shooting (at least that I'm aware of) since 1996.

What we also need is more mental health awareness. But I cba delving into that.


----------



## rbell2915 (Oct 10, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> if youre so worried about your own safety why do you want people to have guns. even if someone would still have a gun youre more likely to be involved in gun related crime if 70 percent of people have guns than if only 10 percent have guns
> 
> dfkhjdfgxfhxg also "if someone shoots me or anyone else i should shoot them!!! dont worry about safety guys because if someone shoots u i will shoot them in return :')" is the most american thing ...



Talking to a wall is more productive than talking to you, but here we go. I don't want criminals to have firearms, but because I have common sense, I know that there are criminals out there who do.

Isn't it obvious that you would want to shoot the person who is trying to kill you or someone else? Nah, you'd just cower in a corner instead of doing something about it. There's nothing worse than someone who sees evil being done, and is not willing to take a stand against it.


----------



## deSPIRIA (Oct 10, 2017)

rbell2915 said:


> Do you think women who are raped shouldn't be allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves?



bad example, a pretty extreme one to throw out too
if they were allowed (and its usually justified anyway)
1) paralysed by fear, not being able to protect themselves
2) being with someone they trust, not carrying the protection they had
3) they might still be overpowered and have the gun taken off of them, making the situation worse, which is likely
4) even if they have the gun with them in their bag they are still vulnerable to alcohol, drugs or spiked drinks, etc etc


----------



## rbell2915 (Oct 10, 2017)

cammy said:


> bad example, a pretty extreme one to throw out too
> if they were allowed (and its usually justified anyway)
> 1) paralysed by fear, not being able to protect themselves
> 2) being with someone they trust, not carrying the protection they had
> ...



1) that's why you should be prepared at all times.
2) if they are carrying the protection, it doesn't matter if it's someone they trust or not. 
3) that's why you don't allow the criminal to get close to you.
4) carrying your gun in your bag is a moronic idea anyway, it should always be on your person where you have positive control over it. And obviously a firearm will not protect you against spiked drinks and alcohol. That's up to you. You shouldn't even be handing a weapon when you're under the influence anyway.

- - - Post Merge - - -

Doubt anyone will watch this but here you go.


----------



## deSPIRIA (Oct 10, 2017)

rbell2915 said:


> 1) that's why you should be prepared at all times.
> 2) if they are carrying the protection, it doesn't matter if it's someone they trust or not.
> 3) that's why you don't allow the criminal to get close to you.
> 4) carrying your gun in your bag is a moronic idea anyway, it should always be on your person where you have positive control over it. And obviously a firearm will not protect you against spiked drinks and alcohol. That's up to you. You shouldn't even be handing a weapon when you're under the influence anyway.



to 1): you cannot fight fear at times. people react differently. and i know how it feels. it's not simply "i'll hurt/kill them and run off" and then everything is fine.
to 2): to them it might. people might feel relaxed with them and they turn off the alert switch. they might have known them for years. they might be manipulated. i'm not trying to speak on what i would do.
to 3): again, it really isn't that simple. they can be faster than you, acting quickly, and you can't do much if you're caught off guard, alone. they might find ways to turn your gun against you.
to 4): my point was that the gun would be useless when away in there, but people probably still do that, like a false sense of comfort. but even when it's on you, there's still a chance that the criminal can find a way to secure it for themselves.

i'll watch the video in a minute


----------



## unravel (Oct 10, 2017)

School Shooting
#dank


----------



## rbell2915 (Oct 10, 2017)

cammy said:


> to 1): you cannot fight fear at times. people react differently. and i know how it feels. it's not simply "i'll hurt/kill them and run off" and then everything is fine.
> to 2): to them it might. people might feel relaxed with them and they turn off the alert switch. they might have known them for years. they might be manipulated. i'm not trying to speak on what i would do.
> to 3): again, it really isn't that simple. they can be faster than you, acting quickly, and you can't do much if you're caught off guard, alone. they might find ways to turn your gun against you.
> to 4): my point was that the gun would be useless when away in there, but people probably still do that, like a false sense of comfort. but even when it's on you, there's still a chance that the criminal can find a way to secure it for themselves.
> ...



These are good points that you bring up, and unfortunately carrying a gun on you isn't going to be the end all be all of protection.
There's a saying in the Marine Corps, "Complacency Kills."
You have to be aware of your surroundings and be prepared to act in a moments notice.
But having a firearm on you is a better bet than having nothing at all.


----------



## deSPIRIA (Oct 10, 2017)

rbell2915 said:


> These are good points that you bring up, and unfortunately carrying a gun on you isn't going to be the end all be all of protection.
> There's a saying in the Marine Corps, "Complacency Kills."
> You have to be aware of your surroundings and be prepared to act in a moments notice.
> But having a firearm on you is a better bet than having nothing at all.



i guess being aware of what's happening is just luck of the draw. if you're trained or you've been taught how to protect yourself then you're definitely going to at least be prepared.
it's also true that it's better to have something but it also could be for the worse, like most things. if the person is bigger and stronger than you then it's harder but still possible to protect yourself. my guess is that many people aren't ready for situations like that because they don't think they will ever need those skills to act quickly.
i'm so-so about guns. i think they can save lives, but i'm also incredibly fearful of them and the power they can have to take lives, the lives of the bad or the good, away.


----------



## Psydye (Oct 10, 2017)

I voted options 7 and 8, but in actuality, I DO think, at the very least, parts to convert a semi-auto to full auto should be banned.


----------



## Miii (Oct 10, 2017)

Restrictions for criminals and the mentally ill, and by mentally ill, I mean ill to the point they're handicapped by it. Like hallucinations, delusions, violent outbursts, things along those lines. I don't mean people with mental health problems like anxiety or depression because those are things that can't really be proven if they're consistently denied.

I also agree that banning guns is a terrible idea for reasons I've stated a hundred times already. I'm glad to see some people making sense in this thread.


----------



## visibleghost (Oct 10, 2017)

Miii said:


> Restrictions for criminals and the mentally ill, and by mentally ill, I mean ill to the point they're handicapped by it. Like they hallucinations, delusions, violent outbursts, things along those lines. I don't mean people with mental health problems like anxiety or depression because those are things that can't really be proven if they're consistently denied.
> 
> I also agree that banning guns is a terrible idea for reasons I've stated a hundred times already. I'm glad to see some people making sense in this thread.



so u think people who have been sentenced for weed or idk tax evasion wont be allowed to own guns bc theyre Criminals?? shouldn't non violent criminals be able to defend themselves against the Bad Guys, do you just want them to get shot to death (since we all know that literally the only way to avoid being murdered w a gun is to own a gun urself)
why not implement a control system that every citizen is required to go through, just so we can know which ones should get guns and which shouldn't :') 

also im really sick of the whole mental illness thing haha. yes there are people who live with mental illness and commit crimes but being mentally ill doesnt make you dangerous. mentally ill people are more at risk of being victims of crimes or hurt themselves. the percentage of crimes that are commited by severely mentally ill people isnt way out of proportion. 
i hate when people blame mentally ill people for gun violence. you just don't want to admit that the current dituation in america and the current gun laws cause crimes commited with guns. yeah, america is unsafe in a lot of places, but if you own a gun you are making it a more unsafe place.

- - - Post Merge - - -

haha Also I Have A Fun Idea; men shouldnt be allowed to own guns because they are too dangerous and violent. a majority of violent crimes are commited by men, it has been noted and time again that men are more violent than women. wouldn't it be logical to not let them own guns? you know, for everyone elses safety :')


----------



## Oblivia (Oct 10, 2017)

This thread's been reported multiple times at this point, so I'll just post to remind everyone to keep it chill if you want to discuss such a controversial topic.  Don't resort to condescension and talking down to others to get your point across, and if you can't have a debate without becoming heated, you need to walk away and refrain from posting entirely.

Not everyone is going to agree about something like this, and that's life.  Respect that others may feel differently than you and consider the fact that they may have their own reasons for feeling the way they do, whether or not they make sense to someone who holds an opposite viewpoint.  I didn't see anything _too_ bad while reading through the posts here, but a few of you need to keep your frustrations in check and be a bit more civil with how you're speaking to others.

Thanks peeps.


----------



## Miii (Oct 10, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> so u think people who have been sentenced for weed or idk tax evasion wont be allowed to own guns bc theyre Criminals?? shouldn't non violent criminals be able to defend themselves against the Bad Guys, do you just want them to get shot to death (since we all know that literally the only way to avoid being murdered w a gun is to own a gun urself)
> why not implement a control system that every citizen is required to go through, just so we can know which ones should get guns and which shouldn't :')



Wow, way to misrepresent my viewpoint. No, I don't think someone charged with possession of weed or other minor drugs, or tax evasion (or a whole myriad of other minor crimes) should lose the right to own a gun. I do, however, think people charged with things like assault, robbery, rape, pedophilia, kidnapping, or criminal homicide (not in self defense) should lose the right to own a gun and to vote. I give zero ****s about those kinds of people.



visibleghost said:


> also im really sick of the whole mental illness thing haha. yes there are people who live with mental illness and commit crimes but being mentally ill doesnt make you dangerous. mentally ill people are more at risk of being victims of crimes or hurt themselves. the percentage of crimes that are commited by severely mentally ill people isnt way out of proportion.
> i hate when people blame mentally ill people for gun violence. you just don't want to admit that the current dituation in america and the current gun laws cause crimes commited with guns. yeah, america is unsafe in a lot of places, but if you own a gun you are making it a more unsafe place.



I'm not blaming gun violence on mentally ill people. I'm saying that if you're mentally ill to the point you can't tell what's real and what isn't, you shouldn't be owning a gun. I know that not every mentally ill person is dangerous, and note that I DIDN'T SAY THEY WERE. Jesus kid. The gun laws currently in place don't cause gun violence. ****ty people do. And, like Ably.Saucey said, gun violence tends to happen in places with strict gun control laws. This is because gun free zones make for _an entire zone of easy targets_. If someone thinks you're armed, they're not going to rob or assault you on your way to your car in a dark parking garage, for example. An armed society is a much more polite society. And once again, only law abiding citizens would fork over their guns were they to be banned, and they'd only make themselves more vulnerable to the people that already don't give a **** about the law, or anyone but themselves.

I own 3 guns by the way, and I'm in no way, shape or form making the US a more dangerous place. They've only ever been used on a target at a range, and I'd very much like to keep it that way.



visibleghost said:


> haha Also I Have A Fun Idea; men shouldnt be allowed to own guns because they are too dangerous and violent. a majority of violent crimes are commited by men, it has been noted and time again that men are more violent than women. wouldn't it be logical to not let them own guns? you know, for everyone elses safety :')



Your profile says you're male. Please explain to me why you're talking **** about yourself.


----------



## rbell2915 (Oct 10, 2017)

Miii said:


> Wow, way to misrepresent my viewpoint. No, I don't think someone charged with possession of weed or other minor drugs, or tax evasion (or a whole myriad of other minor crimes) should lose the right to own a gun. I do, however, think people charged with things like assault, robbery, rape, pedophilia, kidnapping, or criminal homicide (not in self defense) should lose the right to own a gun and to vote. I give zero ****s about those kinds of people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Could not have said it better myself.


----------



## Goshi (Oct 11, 2017)

If this thread's still on here tomorrow or whenever I get on again and are in the mood to talk about this stuff, I'll totally explain my point of view on the situation.


----------



## visibleghost (Oct 11, 2017)

Miii said:


> Your profile says you're male. Please explain to me why you're talking **** about yourself.



im not, im just saying that men generally are more violent than women.


----------



## rbell2915 (Oct 11, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> im not, im just saying that men generally are more violent than women.



That's your only response to Miii's post? I guess everything else is going to be ignored because you have nothing to say? What's your rebuttal?


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Oct 11, 2017)

I believe Miii and rbell2915 make very good points in this thread.

I read an article from a conservative blogging site called TownHall. The writer of the article on gun control suggested that the best way to prevent public shootings is to bring back religion in schools since it teaches morals. Ever since we got rid of the mandated school prayer, our country has gotten more immoral. The increase in public shootings, even if we kept them under control, is one of them. But thanks to our deeply divided nation, I don't think bringing back religion in schools is gonna work.


----------



## Zane (Oct 11, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> I believe Miii and rbell2915 make very good points in this thread.
> 
> I read an article from a conservative blogging site called TownHall. The writer of the article on gun control suggested that the best way to prevent public shootings is to bring back religion in schools since it teaches morals. Ever since we got rid of the mandated school prayer, our country has gotten more immoral. The increase in public shootings, even if we kept them under control, is one of them. But thanks to our deeply divided nation, I don't think bringing back religion in schools is gonna work.



It's not like religion doesn't exist anymore just because people are no longer forced to learn it in school. People are still free to practice whatever religion they choose in their own personal lives, which is how it should be - rather than having the school system decide what religion you should follow (based on what, by the way... which one teaches the "best" morals? would this idea include mandatory teaching of all faiths in school? I just don't see the logic)


----------



## Miii (Oct 11, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> im not, im just saying that men generally are more violent than women.



You know... I thought you were just being sarcastic with that last paragraph, which is why I replied with something equally as sarcastic  but wow. Do you honestly think men shouldn't be allowed to own guns? Why are you so partial to women? What actually makes us any better? I don't see any reason that I'm more deserving of gun ownership than a man that, like me and the majority of people, chooses not to be a criminal.

A larger portion of crimes may be committed by men, but the _vast majority of men in the US aren't violent_. I think people should have the right to own a gun unless they have a disabling mental illness where reality is unclear to them or they're prone to violent outbursts, or until they prove otherwise by committing a violent crime.


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Oct 11, 2017)

ummm I like turtles


----------



## Miii (Oct 11, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> I believe Miii and rbell2915 make very good points in this thread.
> 
> I read an article from a conservative blogging site called TownHall. The writer of the article on gun control suggested that the best way to prevent public shootings is to bring back religion in schools since it teaches morals. Ever since we got rid of the mandated school prayer, our country has gotten more immoral. The increase in public shootings, even if we kept them under control, is one of them. But thanks to our deeply divided nation, I don't think bringing back religion in schools is gonna work.



I completely disagree with that, and though I haven't read the article myself, it already sounds like the guy is religious himself, and speaking from personal experience. I have to go to work soon, but I might check it out later. 

If you want your kid to go to a religious school, put them in private school. Separation of church and state and freedom of religion in the US are two very important things that we can't just toss aside in an attempt to deal with individuals committing violent crimes. I think it's up to parents to instill values and morals in their children. I think it's also up to parents to spend time with their kids, to be there for them and to watch them closely while they're growing up to look for negative behavior/ character traits developing so they can correct them. I personally wouldn't want anyone else telling my kids what to believe, that they have to pray or anything else like that. You can certainly uphold traditionally Christian values without actually believing in a god.


----------



## rbell2915 (Oct 11, 2017)

I think that allowing teachers to carry firearms on them during the school day would be extremely beneficial in lowering the chance of a school shooting. 

Gun free zones just means open season to psychopaths.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Oct 11, 2017)

Miii said:


> I completely disagree with that, and though I haven't read the article myself, it already sounds like the guy is religious himself, and speaking from personal experience. I have to go to work soon, but I might check it out later.
> 
> If you want your kid to go to a religious school, put them in private school. Separation of church and state and freedom of religion in the US are two very important things that we can't just toss aside in an attempt to deal with individuals committing violent crimes. I think it's up to parents to instill values and morals in their children. I think it's also up to parents to spend time with their kids, to be there for them and to watch them closely while they're growing up to look for negative behavior/ character traits developing so they can correct them. I personally wouldn't want anyone else telling my kids what to believe, that they have to pray or anything else like that. You can certainly uphold traditionally Christian values without actually believing in a god.



I've been reading his articles for months now. I don't think he's religious, but he's very conservative. His articles point out the left-wing hypocrisies and the bad behavior of the left wing, as they always point in liberals in a negative light. But he's also very negative.


----------



## Stalfos (Oct 11, 2017)

Solving gun violence with even more guns? Only in america boys and girls, only in america.


----------



## seliph (Oct 11, 2017)

rbell2915 said:


> I think that allowing teachers to carry firearms on them during the school day would be extremely beneficial in lowering the chance of a school shooting.
> 
> Gun free zones just means open season to psychopaths.



"I think allowing someone to carry a gun in a school would lower the chance of shootings, by guns, in schools"

Excuse me but what am I reading

You know what would lower the chance of school shootings? Making it harder for school shooters to get guns.


----------



## Nightmares (Oct 11, 2017)

The argument that you need to "protect yourselves" is plain ********.


----------



## Miii (Oct 11, 2017)

Nightmares said:


> The argument that you need to "protect yourselves" is plain ********.



You've obviously lived a very, _very_ sheltered life. There are some absolutely horrible people out there, no matter how safe the place you live in is, that would do things to you I can't even mention on this forum without getting banned. You should have a gun for home defense, and it's good to go through the CHL course and get your concealed carry license.


----------



## Mink777 (Oct 11, 2017)

You need them to protect yourself.


----------



## Goshi (Oct 11, 2017)

This one's a pickle tickler. I disagree with completely eliminating guns, but I think gun control could work if we did it... right. My suggestions?


Have an intense background and criminal background check, and anything that connects to violent history/criminal record automatically disqualifies you unless you appeal.

Make getting a gun/gun permit more like how one would get a driver?s license, which means:

a permit to learn about it

course includes an exam with 18 or more questions on the policies, laws, and the rest of the stuff on guns and      
    gun ownership

if you get more than 8-10 questions incorrect, you have to take it again

thirty hours of practical experience at a gun range with a licensed and experienced teacher


Must take a five hour class on the dangers of guns and how to use them safely, which will then give you a certificate that grants you to take the practical exam and the certificate lasts for about one year. If you don?t gain the license within the allotted year, you must retake the class.

A practical exam with a licensed instructor who will grade you on various skills on use. If you pass you may be granted a permit on the weapon of your choice, the exams may differ on the type of firearm you want.

Follow the Japanese model where you must have two gun safes in different areas of the house, one to store the gun and one to store the bullets and you must provide the police with information on where those safes are. (They seem to have a good model, so far.)

No concealed carry, and only handguns may be allowed to be out in public.

If one is transporting a weapon, it must be in the trunk of a vehicle, in a bag or type of case, safety on and unloaded, and may not leave the vehicle until the user is at the destination.

If someone's a hunter or some other gun hobbyist that requires a functional weapon other than a handgun, then the gun must stay on the premises, whether that is a gun range or some facility.

If you live in a rural area where police and people are few and far between, something akin to a deer hunting rifle should provide plenty of protection from predators and poachers, you still have to follow the steps above.

This entire list is something I conjured up two years ago and made some minor changes to on a word document, so it's pretty short. Now this prolly doesn't cover _everything_, but it's a start.

Since I'm more in the left wing circles I'm gonna say some extra things that I've heard from comrades of mine.

*Point one: "The revolution should be armed."*

Yeah... but conservatives/rightwingers/whatever feel the same way about their idea of a revolution, and either side is always going to be quashed by the military or police - citizens do not have the firepower capable of contesting them.

*Point two: "Marginalized people should own guns for self-defense."*

Thing is, it?s been shown like _repeatedly_ that "self defense" arguments hold no water - yes, even among marginalized groups, the presence of a gun heightens abuse and murder likelihood, not prevents it. But marginalized groups - particularly people of color, particularly black people - have to also deal with the fact gun rights don?t work the same for them; whether "self defense" is determined depends heavily on what privileges you hold (or don?t hold), so you know, it?s a nice idea on paper, but it doesn?t work out in the real world, where marginalized people aren?t allowed to defend themselves no matter what laws exist that supposedly protect that right. 

Just for an example out of many.

*Point three: "It's dangerous for the police and the military to be the only people with access to guns."*


This almost makes the suggestion that we should let regular citizens have literally everything the police and military uses, and I?m not sure how anyone can think that sounds like a great idea. I agree that the police and the military are out of control, but I dunno if anyone's ever noticed, but civil war and violent, hostile takeover isn?t really a solution for crap. Maybe we forgot this while being cushioned in our privileges here in US while other countries have lived in a state of war for decades - war?s not pretty or heroic, what we?ve seen so far in hate crime statistics and bigoted rallies is nothing compared to war.

---

I'm assuming a lot of this is coming around via tankies and stuff because of this one Marx quote: "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." But that's another story.

Buuuut bottom line, I think gun control isn?t simple and straightforward like many assume it to be. This should be paid more attention to.


----------



## Warrior (Oct 11, 2017)

These are two interesting ones 

 Restrictions for mentally ill
 Restrictions for suicidal people

You're essentially making the mentally ill a 'predator' class, which is absolutely ridiculous. What's considered mental illness, is autism a mental illness? Do we take away a means of protection from vulnerable people? That's absolutely ridiculous. 


The suicide one is another point, people who feel suicidal do not tell anyone, because when they do they are shoved into a psych ward - which will make them more suicidal 9/10. Putting more and more limits on people who feel suicidal and are only looking for help, will only create more suicides.


It's not such a straight forward issue that you can just flip a switch on it. I personally dislike guns, but making them illegal means only criminals will have them  - and is that any better? It certainly won't help places like Chicago that's for sure. And then do you let the police have guns but not civilians? it just opens up the power divide even more. 


Why don't people look at who is holding the gun, and why? Can mental health reform help? Can we get to a point where help is accessible for people for free before they commit a crime? America has bigger issues than Guns. Banning guns is akin to putting a bandaid on a leukemia patient and saying the problem is fixed.


----------



## visibleghost (Oct 12, 2017)

Warrior said:


> These are two interesting ones
> 
> Restrictions for mentally ill
> Restrictions for suicidal people
> ...


i agree w the first part a lot lol bc like... if we could be like "yo ok so everyone who will hurt other people and do illegal things w a gun arent allowed to get a gun" then Great Cool Yeah, but theres no way of knowing who's going to do what, and the risk factors everyone is talking abt arent that Great and for a big part based on stereotypes and misconceptions


----------



## tumut (Oct 12, 2017)

"People would still kill people if guns were banned"

Yeah try killing 50 people with a knife, Steve. 

"Guns protect ppl "
Yeah ok let's fight fire with fire. More guns will definitely decrease violence, accidents, and suicides!
"It's in the Constitution and if u wanna ban guns u can't cuz this is America lol"
This is open to interpretation, as the second amendment was created to allow Americans to form militias to protect themselves, though u can argue on that one all day.
"Ppl are still gonna do it anyway lol"
Yeah but FAR LESS people, do you want to save MORE innocent lives??

I don't understand how anyone can not understand the purpose and practicality of gun control, and obviously have not witnessed first hand the damage and horror gun accidents entail.


----------



## Gusmanak (Oct 12, 2017)

I personally believe that a crime won't be committed if a would be criminal thinks their victim/victims might be armed.

Hence I think less gun control is needed rather than more.

If someone in the orlando club shooting had a concealed permit, they would've shot the guy dead.


----------



## Stalfos (Oct 12, 2017)

Gusmanak said:


> I personally believe that a crime won't be committed if a would be criminal thinks their victim/victims might be armed.
> 
> Hence I think less gun control is needed rather than more.
> 
> If someone in the orlando club shooting had a concealed permit, they would've shot the guy dead.



I think someone's been watching too much telly.


----------



## Corrie (Oct 12, 2017)

VanessaMay18 said:


> I think they should be banned in the States or at least regulated far more strictly. In other countries like Canada, the U.K., Australia and Japan with stricter gun laws there are waaaay less shootings than in the States, and not many people up here (Canada) as far as I know carry around guns for defense but we're fine, or at least way more fine than the States. If guns are banned, then there isn't as much a _need_ for that level of defense. I know majority of gun owners are safe with their guns but at this point is it really worth the risk? People's safety is more important than whatever reason people "need" guns for (and yes self defense is also important but again, if guns are banned there won't be as much a need for self defense!!! And honestly it's not like in a situation like last night someone in the crowd could've saved people in any way by having a gun)



Exactly this. People against banning guns always say it won't stop shootings but then why are there so little shootings in places that do have stricter gun control than in the USA where in most states, people can carry guns on them while they go shopping.


----------



## visibleghost (Oct 12, 2017)

Gusmanak said:


> I personally believe that a crime won't be committed if a would be criminal thinks their victim/victims might be armed.
> 
> Hence I think less gun control is needed rather than more.
> 
> If someone in the orlando club shooting had a concealed permit, they would've shot the guy dead.



that logic kinda sucks my dude

why would fewer people be murdered with guns if everyone has a gun


----------



## Nightmares (Oct 12, 2017)

Miii said:


> You've obviously lived a very, _very_ sheltered life. There are some absolutely horrible people out there, no matter how safe the place you live in is, that would do things to you I can't even mention on this forum without getting banned. You should have a gun for home defense, and it's good to go through the CHL course and get your concealed carry license.



wot
then how do people in countries without guns protect themselves them? lmfao
even if the supposed "good" person has a gun, the "bad" person could just as easily have one too... you can defend yourself more easily, but you can be killed more easily...rite
idk anything about guns though becAUSE I'M SHELTERED


----------



## visibleghost (Oct 12, 2017)

Miii said:


> You've obviously lived a very, _very_ sheltered life. There are some absolutely horrible people out there, no matter how safe the place you live in is, that would do things to you I can't even mention on this forum without getting banned. You should have a gun for home defense, and it's good to go through the CHL course and get your concealed carry license.



there are other ways to protect yourself that dont involve having a weapon. it's not normal at all to be so used to violence and crime that you think someone has lived a very sheltered life if they think owning a gun for "protection" is weird.
whatever's going on where you're living.... sorry buddy but you have other problems that can't be solved by just pushing in more guns.


----------



## Nightmares (Oct 12, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> there are other ways to protect yourself that dont involve having a weapon. it's not normal at all to be so used to violence and crime that you think someone has lived a very sheltered life if they think owning a gun for "protection" is weird.
> whatever's going on where you're living.... sorry buddy but you have other problems that can't be solved by just pushing in more guns.



You explained this better than me, thanks lmao


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Oct 12, 2017)

Corrie said:


> Exactly this. People against banning guns always say it won't stop shootings but then why are there so little shootings in places that do have stricter gun control than in the USA where in most states, people can carry guns on them while they go shopping.



That’s because guns didn’t live up in their culture as much as it did here. America had so many guns that even banning them isn’t going to stop future shootings.

Wanna know something interesting? Compared to the rest of the developed world, America is vastly different based on stuff. Examples include, but not limited to:

- Citizens have the right to own a gun. In places like Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, gun control is very loose.
- We are the only country to elect our leaders through the electoral college. The rest of the world uses popular vote to elect a leader.
- We primarily use the imperial measurement system. We also write date format as Month, Day, Year.
- Drugs like marijuana and cocaine are illegal in America. Drinking age is 21 (which is high compared to the developed world).
- We still have the federal death penalty.
- Despite Obamacare in our structure, we still don’t have a national healthcare system like Canada or UK has.
- Religion plays a larger role than in the rest of the developed world.

Yeah, America remains different as of now, and it’s like this for a reason. Some of the stuff is hard to adapt because of the Constitution. Although it says that it’s not a static document, some core stuff like the Bill of Rights were set in stone at the beginning, and some of the stuff the rest of the world follows isn’t compatible with ours.


----------



## abc123wee (Oct 12, 2017)

I have conflicting views. On one side, I think they should be banned, as many seemingly innocent people have gone and done horrible things with them. On the other hand, I would like to be able to protect myself from home invaders.

"BUT it is in the constitution!" 
Uhhh, please. Back in the 1700s, guns fired one shot per minute. Pretty outdated if you ask me.


----------



## Miii (Oct 12, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> there are other ways to protect yourself that dont involve having a weapon. it's not normal at all to be so used to violence and crime that you think someone has lived a very sheltered life if they think owning a gun for "protection" is weird.
> whatever's going on where you're living.... sorry buddy but you have other problems that can't be solved by just pushing in more guns.



What about if someone much bigger and stronger than you attacks you? What other alternative self defense means can guarantee you as much of a chance of leaving a dangerous situation safely as a firearm? I'm 5"2' and I weigh 120 lbs. If someone that's 6" tall that weights 180 lbs were to attack me, that's a fight I'd honestly probably lose even after a self defense class. And, actually, I'm not used to violence. I live in a pretty safe neighborhood full of old people and kids. I've never been attacked, mugged or anything like that and most of the people I know haven't been, either.

Maybe I haven't made this clear, but I don't think guns should be your way of solving conflict, getting back at people you're pissed off at, etc. I consider them to be the solution only to the absolute worst case scenario where an individual is in danger of losing their life to another person, or being seriously harmed by them, or to a situation where you're protecting another person from being killed or seriously harmed. Like I said, I have guns, but I don't _ever_ want to have to use them on a person. The worst case scenario actually happening isn't likely at all, but I don't think that should play a part in whether or not you decide to be prepared for it. 

It's the same reasoning behind why, if I go camping or backpacking, I'll take a mylar foil blanket (they trap 90% and up of all the body heat you release), a survival straw (filters particulates and pathogenic bacteria out of natural water sources), clothes for hot, cold, dry and damp weather, a guide for edible wild plants, and a survival tin (full of duct tape, a tiny utility knife, antibiotics, fever reducer, anti diarrhea medication, and a few other things). It's not likely at all that I'd be stranded in the wilderness, but why risk it?


----------



## rbell2915 (Oct 13, 2017)

abc123wee said:


> I have conflicting views. On one side, I think they should be banned, as many seemingly innocent people have gone and done horrible things with them. On the other hand, I would like to be able to protect myself from home invaders.
> 
> "BUT it is in the constitution!"
> Uhhh, please. Back in the 1700s, guns fired one shot per minute. Pretty outdated if you ask me.



 Wrong.

Wrong again.

Need I continue?

That was about 30 seconds of research. The fact that you think the Founding Fathers didn't know anything about how technology advanced is almost comical, but mostly disappointing. 

I guess free speech should only apply to newspapers, pen and paper, and soapboxes in your infinite wisdom, because the internet, cell phones, and laptops didn't exist back then.


----------



## Hellfish (Mar 20, 2018)

The thing that baffles me is that Americans don't need to ban guns. Although I'm all for there being no firearms across the globe, simply adding restrictions (Like for driving a car) would lessen the amount of people who shouldn't own a gun.

It undoubtedly will not solve the problem but it will reduce a fair amount of guns being in the wrong hands. Yes people will find other illegal means to obtain firearms and yes there will still be crime BUT even if one life is saved from a tighter restriction is that not worth it at all?

Surely this is a win win right? People who want to own guns (self defense and hunting/recreation) and legally can and those who shouldn't own guns can't obtain them as easily.

The only thing blocking this almost perfect improvement is the sub-human people who are indoctrinated by old documents and national pride who think having their heads up their own a@# is worth a couple hundred school children being shot.

P.s. I adore turtles ^-^


----------



## SockHead (Mar 20, 2018)

yes i think


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 20, 2018)

Option #8 is still the only correct option.

But in all seriousness, I am against banning guns completely. However, we do need at least restrictions on guns. Having little or no restrictions is quite dangerous, but banning them completely is not going to stop what people push for gun control on. I am easily convinced that killing people by swinging with a baseball bat can kill just as many people as a shooting in the same amount of time. That is, if you're good enough at quick close-combat attacks. With that, you can only kill one at a time, but more than two within five seconds. And that's how you can kill just as many a gun can kill in a short period of time, and in a more cruel way than decapitating people. I was even told that killing someone with a baseball bat is one of the cruelest things you can do. But this may happen if we put an absolute ban on guns. Also, guns aren't too effective either. Lot of bad shots in a shooting, hence why we have injuries and not just fatalities. But we'll need more than just background checks. I don't understand the big deal with bump stocks or different type of bullets, but I can see the problem with semi-automatic weapons.

Now here's one question that ponders me. If liberals push for stricter gun laws after every shooting, why didn't they push for stricter gun laws after the 2017 Congressional Baseball Shooting when the perpetrator was targeting Republican congressmen in a shooting?


----------



## Hellfish (Mar 20, 2018)

Alolan_Apples said:


> Option #8 is still the only correct option.
> 
> But in all seriousness, I am against banning guns completely. However, we do need at least restrictions on guns. Having little or no restrictions is quite dangerous, but banning them completely is not going to stop what people push for gun control on. I am easily convinced that killing people by swinging with a baseball bat can kill just as many people as a shooting in the same amount of time. That is, if you're good enough at quick close-combat attacks. With that, you can only kill one at a time, but more than two within five seconds. And that's how you can kill just as many a gun can kill in a short period of time, and in a more cruel way than decapitating people. I was even told that killing someone with a baseball bat is one of the cruelest things you can do. But this may happen if we put an absolute ban on guns. Also, guns aren't too effective either. Lot of bad shots in a shooting, hence why we have injuries and not just fatalities. But we'll need more than just background checks. I don't understand the big deal with bump stocks or different type of bullets, but I can see the problem with semi-automatic weapons.
> 
> Now here's one question that ponders me. If liberals push for stricter gun laws after every shooting, why didn't they push for stricter gun laws after the 2017 Congressional Baseball Shooting when the perpetrator was targeting Republican congressmen in a shooting?



You make good points about restricting firearms, but you lose all credibility when you say that a baseball is as effective as a gun at mass slaughter...

One is designed for killing things and the other hits a ball a distance away. If you've got a crowd of 50 people running away from someone with a bat, that person would need a moderate fitness level to catch up to some and at the same time, swing the bat with enough force and accuracy to injure someone.

A gun on the other hand is point and squeeze, even if a kill shot isn't landed you still deal a great amount of damage ripping veins and other organs.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 20, 2018)

Hellfish said:


> You make good points about restricting firearms, but you lose all credibility when you say that a baseball is as effective as a gun at mass slaughter...
> 
> One is designed for killing things and the other hits a ball a distance away. If you've got a crowd of 50 people running away from someone with a bat, that person would need a moderate fitness level to catch up to some and at the same time, swing the bat with enough force and accuracy to injure someone.
> 
> A gun on the other hand is point and squeeze, even if a kill shot isn't landed you still deal a great amount of damage ripping veins and other organs.



I decided not to argue, but the point of the baseball bat massacre scenario is that people will use anything to kill mass crowds if guns are banned. Even guns (well they would already be illegal anyway, but people could get involved in illegal gun smuggling, then use them for bad).

I also want to know why liberals didn't push for gun control after some guy shot at the Republicans in a mass shooting last year, yet do it for the other mass shootings.


----------



## That Marshal Fangirl (Mar 20, 2018)

Just popping in to express my gratitude for the "I like turtles" option.


----------



## Hellfish (Mar 20, 2018)

Alolan_Apples said:


> I decided not to argue, but the point of the baseball bat massacre scenario is that people will use anything to kill mass crowds if guns are banned. Even guns (well they would already be illegal anyway, but people could get involved in illegal gun smuggling, then use them for bad).
> 
> I also want to know why liberals didn't push for gun control after some guy shot at the Republicans in a mass shooting last year, yet do it for the other mass shootings.



I can understand what your getting at by saying banning guns won't fix anything because people commit crime and slaughter regardless, which is true, it's just kinda silly to use a physical example since humans haven't invented many things that are effective at killing people as guns have (The only other thing that would exceed it would be explosives or biological weapons (ironically they both have restrictions or global bans on them ^-^ (i.e. the materials to make them)))

I'll give you the fine example of a car though, it's a lot easier to kill a crowd with a car then a baseball bat.

Regarding your political issues, I believe it's because either group of people are only in it for themselves, hence the reason why they only push for things when it suits their agenda. I'm not familiar with politics in your country tho...


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 20, 2018)

Hellfish said:


> (The only other thing that would exceed it would be explosives or biological weapons (ironically they both have restrictions or global bans on them ^-^ (i.e. the materials to make them)))



Not only that, but you'll need the knowledge and ability to make these highly dangerous weapons. Somehow, the ban on the materials didn't stop the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, but this wouldn't happened if the government never got involved in Waco in 1993 or Ruby Ridge in 1992. Honestly, if we want to stop attacks like this, we need to stop hate, and to do that, we need to avoid what fuels hatred.


----------



## Hellfish (Mar 20, 2018)

Alolan_Apples said:


> Not only that, but you'll need the knowledge and ability to make these highly dangerous weapons. Somehow, the ban on the materials didn't stop the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, but this wouldn't happened if the government never got involved in Waco in 1993 or Ruby Ridge in 1992. Honestly, if we want to stop attacks like this, we need to stop hate, and to do that, we need to avoid what fuels hatred.



Sadly there's no way to stop this, only lessen the likelihood of it happening, which is why I stated in my original post that adding a restriction will by no means stop the issue but it's infinitely times better then doing nothing, which is why I can't understand why Americans don't introduce restrictions...


----------



## calamitybot (Mar 20, 2018)

Only law-abiding citizens will obey the law. The answer to the "gun issue" in america isnt banning or restricting guns. there needs to be a serious shift in american culture, i think. if healthcare is made more accessible to people, the mentally ill can receive better treatment, limiting the chances of more massacres. if bullying in schools was made a bigger offense, young, impressionable kids wouldnt want to kill their classmates.

though, my opinions are all objectively stupid. i think that all drugs should be legalised, as well as weapons, and that schooling should not be a requirement in any state. basically, i want a complete darwinist society where i can buy nukes and live in an underground bunker

- - - Post Merge - - -

another point: cant get shot if youre the only shooter DDDDDDDDDD


----------



## Hellfish (Mar 20, 2018)

trans said:


> Only law-abiding citizens will obey the law. The answer to the "gun issue" in america isnt banning or restricting guns. there needs to be a serious shift in american culture, i think. if healthcare is made more accessible to people, the mentally ill can receive better treatment, limiting the chances of more massacres. if bullying in schools was made a bigger offense, young, impressionable kids wouldnt want to kill their classmates.
> 
> though, my opinions are all objectively stupid. i think that all drugs should be legalised, as well as weapons, and that schooling should not be a requirement in any state. basically, i want a complete darwinist society where i can buy nukes and live in an underground bunker
> 
> ...



It's extremely unrealistic to think that the American culture can be changed. Healthcare would help greatly regardless of whether there were shootings or not so while it's worth raising it's not worth ruling out valid restrictions (to which I've made my point earlier). 1% of Americans are already in prison so I don't think prosecuting children for bullying is a very good solution either.

And your last two comments I'm not taking seriously ^-^


----------



## John Wick (Mar 20, 2018)

I'ved owned many guns over the years, but mainly for snakes (I love snakes, but some poisonous ones here in AU DO attack) as I lived in a country area for a year. 

I ended up selling my guns to a local cop. 

These days I reckon we should do away with them. 

They say guns don't kill people - PEOPLE kill people. 

Really? 

Then.. HOW are there any gunshot victims?


----------



## vel (Mar 21, 2018)

make getting guns harder. there should be a stricter way to get guns, i know quite a few people that own guns that are under 18, and i know people who have gotten permits, and they all say one thing: it is way too easy to obtain a gun. *getting a gun should be the equivalent of a woman trying to get an abortion.* it should not be easy, and it should be a privilege. i don't think guns should be banned, guns aren't the problem; the people wielding them are.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Alolan_Apples said:


> baseball bat massacre scenario



since when has a baseball bat murdered a room full of people in a matter of seconds.


----------



## calamitybot (Mar 21, 2018)

Hellfish said:


> And your last two comments I'm not taking seriously ^-^



you absolute *fool. *you _imbecile_. i am being completely serious

- - - Post Merge - - -



vel said:


> B]getting a gun should be the equivalent of a woman trying to get an abortion.[/B] it should not be easy, and it should be a privilege. i don't think guns should be banned, guns aren't the problem; the people wielding them are.



good opinion.


----------



## Diancie (Mar 21, 2018)

I've been reading through a lot of the points made on this thread. Coincidentally, I just had a conversation with my dad about this before clicking the post. 

As Hellfish stated, do we have to wait until there is a "shift" in American culture? Throughout the time we try to "change" the culture there will be more and more shootings. 

And to those who say that it's not the guns which are the problem: The only way to decrease the amount of shootings right now is to ban guns. Guns were banned in the UK in 1996 after their first and last school shooting occurred, and only one mass shooting has occurred since then (yet 273 mass shootings occurred in the USA in just 2017). 

I am not trying to say that the crime rate will immensely go down because of course it won't. I still see headlines of people ramming their cars just to kill people in the UK. However, the least it will do is reduce the amount of people being killed.


----------



## Barbara (Mar 21, 2018)

Ban all guns. I don't even know where you Americans got the idea to allow it to the common people.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 21, 2018)

vel said:


> since when has a baseball bat murdered a room full of people in a matter of seconds.



Never happened. But to be honest, I made that claim to defend guns from total ban when arguing with a left-winger.

The issue of gun control keeps getting pushed when a public shooting happens, but the issue goes deeper than that. Whether guns are banned or not, large scale attacks are still gonna happen. Maybe not with baseball bats, knives, or stones, but attacks can still happen. Gun control is not the answer.


----------



## tiffanistarr (Mar 21, 2018)

I hate guns but I really do like turtles too.

On a more serious note, I could live happily in a country where guns are just not an accessible thing. And that's coming from someone who's grown up around them, owned them, and fired them. 

I think people in my country (the US) have it way too easy when it comes to buying and getting firearms. It's absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. I think if you want to own a firearm you should go through great lengths to own one similar to a drivers license, but much MUCH harder. I think there should be classes and tests you have to take. I also think you should be heavily vetted and evaluated and then the moment you slip up(any unlawful violence or signs of mental instability) your gun is taken away from you. 

I think it's absolutely stupid to own any sort of automatic weaponry. I think assault rifles should be banned because there is simply not a need for them. 

I also think if they want to solve a lot of gun issues in this country they need to also bring attention to the gun sales that take place on different markets and in the streets. 

I also think it's demeaning and horrific that the government and the nra put an outdated (imo) amendment before the lives of children and other innocent people. The government and the nra simply don't care about how many lives are lost and how many people are affected by the on-going and constant tragedies at the result of a gun.  Most of these shooters legally obtain their guns, why are they allowed to have access to such things? Guns are a HUGE problem, but mental health is just as much an issue that needs to be taken way more serious.  

I could rant for hours and hours on this topic alone.

Anyways that's just my two cents ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## ellarella (Mar 21, 2018)

i come from a country where guns are banned, and i can highly recommend it


----------



## Akira-chan (Mar 21, 2018)

Ban all guns? : no. 
Ban guns that are capable of killing multiple people with little effort?: Yes

i see no need for_ any sane human person in the us to even own one._ why would anyone need or want something like this. people claim we need guns for self defense, which is perfectly ok. What i dont understand is why we sell automatic ****ing weapons. Its sick. we dont need them. We dont need that powerful of a weapon in the hands of anyone in the US. keep weapons of war out of our country imo.


----------



## Locokoko182 (Mar 21, 2018)

My personal opinion:

Guns will never go away in the US. Repealing the 2nd amendment would actually cause a civil war, I guarantee it.

I believe there are a few policies that, if put in law, it'll GREATLY help reduce gun deaths.

1) Make education/school better. That's right. Our education is bad. School environments are bad. If you look at disturbed school shooters, they often are bullied and don't do well in school. We need better schooling, better teachers, and healthier school environments. PUT MORE MONEY INTO EDUCATION.
2) PUT MORE MONEY INTO HEALTHCARE AND FIX OUR HEALTHCARE SITUATION. The kinds of people who become mass shooters are mentally ill. They need help. If you look at the state of healthcare in the US, it's a horribly sorry state. I believe if we make it so the poor and mentally ill can easily get help, no matter their financial state, we can get help for the kinds of people who would normally become school shooters.
3) MAKE IT HARDER TO OWN GUNS, BUT DON'T PUNISH THOSE WHO QUALIFY. Make background checks take longer. Punish people who sell guns illegally at gun shows. Require mental health checks for gun owners. Those who DO qualify, however, shouldn't be punished. If you show that you know how to handle a gun, and you are trustworthy with one, and pass background checks etc, you should be able to have a big ol' shotgun or a machine gun. 

Unfortunately, seeing how broken and corrupt our system is, I don't think the healthcare problem or the education problem will be solved soon. People care too much about the money in their pockets, and about putting money into the military instead of putting money into education.


----------



## tiffanistarr (Mar 21, 2018)

Locokoko182 said:


> My personal opinion:
> 
> Guns will never go away in the US. Repealing the 2nd amendment would actually cause a civil war, I guarantee it.
> 
> ...




THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!!!

I'm always the odd one out when I bring up how these mass/school shooters are disturbed and need help. It pains to me see someone like Nikolas Cruz who seems to be a smart and good looking kid who could have had such a bright future, but his illness led him to acting in such horrific ways.  

And I am in NO WAY saying he shouldn't pay the price for what he's done - he absolutely should, but when I see all these reports on how so many damn officials knew his mental state and knew that he tried killing himself before.... You just know all those times were pleads and and screams for help, but the state failed him just as much as the state failed the kids and teachers who lost their lives due to the shooting in general.  I can't imagine being so depressed and so angry to want to kill that many people and it's such a shame that nobody intervened and gave him the help he deserved when he was begging and pleading for it through his actions.


----------



## Hellfish (Mar 21, 2018)

Locokoko182 said:


> My personal opinion:
> 
> Guns will never go away in the US. Repealing the 2nd amendment would actually cause a civil war, I guarantee it.
> 
> ...



Completely agree with everything you said


----------



## Locokoko182 (Mar 21, 2018)

tiffanistarr said:


> THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!!!
> 
> I'm always the odd one out when I bring up how these mass/school shooters are disturbed and need help. It pains to me see someone like Nikolas Cruz who seems to be a smart and good looking kid who could have had such a bright future, but his illness led him to acting in such horrific ways.
> 
> And I am in NO WAY saying he shouldn't pay the price for what he's done - he absolutely should, but when I see all these reports on how so many damn officials knew his mental state and knew that he tried killing himself before.... You just know all those times were pleads and and screams for help, but the state failed him just as much as the state failed the kids and teachers who lost their lives due to the shooting in general.  I can't imagine being so depressed and so angry to want to kill that many people and it's such a shame that nobody intervened and gave him the help he deserved when he was begging and pleading for it through his actions.



It annoys me that government officials blame video games. With or without video games, they would commit the crimes. Well adjusted people play GTA too. It’s their life circumstances, not the games.


----------



## tiffanistarr (Mar 21, 2018)

Locokoko182 said:


> It annoys me that government officials blame video games. With or without video games, they would commit the crimes. Well adjusted people play GTA too. It’s their life circumstances, not the games.




YES! That irks me too and they disregard the scientific data and stats that show video game violence does not make violent people. I've been playing GTA since I was a kid before I was even a teenager and I'm fine and I know there's millions more like me. 

Also it's just completely asinine to me that they don't realize these games are released world-wide. These aren't US only games that get absorbed my today's American youth and gamers alike. Since they are absorbed world-wide how come the US is the only country that seemingly has a problem with these mass school shootings?  I really don't think you can blame video games or Hollywood anything that compares. If we were all greatly disturbed by video games and what we see in movies we'd all be dead.


----------



## John Wick (Mar 21, 2018)

Actually, AC is more likely to cause someone to snap. 

GTA is a smooth ride!


----------



## Hellfish (Mar 21, 2018)

Locokoko182 said:


> It annoys me that government officials blame video games. With or without video games, they would commit the crimes. Well adjusted people play GTA too. It?s their life circumstances, not the games.



There's been numerous studies regarding video games and violence and as far as I'm aware the outcome has always been that there's no correlation between people who play video games and violent behavior. It's just the government and higher ups looking for a scapegoat


----------



## vel (Mar 21, 2018)

Alolan_Apples said:


> Gun control is not the answer.



gun control IS the answer. guns are the only thing capable of wiping people in seconds. knives, baseball bats, whatever the hell else could kill, but so could dictionaries, scissors, shampoo, those could all kill as well if you want to go to that front. and, like it is, a public SHOOTING. large scale attacks will happen, but at least we are working toward preventing them. accessibility to guns is the problem.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 21, 2018)

vel said:


> gun control IS the answer.



There's no need to get angry over the issue.

I know public shootings keep happening and they need to stop, but nothing can stop them. But if you want some suggestions, here's what I have:

1. Bring back teaching morals in schools. Religion in schools has done well, but there shouldn't be a mandate on that. But there should be mandates on schools teaching morals, which includes allowing the teachers to punish students. Not only lack of morals lead to more crime and shootings, but it also lead to bullying going out of control. At the same time, we should make filing lawsuits against a school a felony unless if the student was wrongfully punished.
2. Reinstate or expand the Death Penalty. If a person commits a shooting where five or more people are dead, they should be tried within six months or less, sentenced to death with no right to appeal, executed within three days after trial, and must be done by hanging or guillotine. If they committed suicide like the cowards they are or get killed by another person, their bodies should be cremated then dumped into the sea. We should also ignore protests and petitions to stop this.
3. The national news must stop reporting public shootings. Seriously, the more we do this, the more it gives others ideas. I understand the severity of the situation, but what makes shootings worse is reporting them.

And even if we push for gun control, it could hardly pass. Senators and representatives were considering on pushing for gun control after the Sandy Hook shooting, but then refused because of the fear of losing seats. Yes, our federal Congresspeople have put their selfishness in front of peoples' lives. That's like letting a person die just to get free pizza.


----------



## Hellfish (Mar 21, 2018)

Alolan_Apples said:


> There's no need to get angry over the issue.
> 
> I know public shootings keep happening and they need to stop, but nothing can stop them. But if you want some suggestions, here's what I have:
> 
> ...



Religion will do little to help and while teaching Morals is a good thing it's not going to change anything. The vast majority of shooters know what they're doing is bad. It's not like you go to a school and say "killing people is wrong" and the children reply "woah really?". Giving teachers means to punish is also a terribly stupid idea and would cause more shootings.

Once again if you've got the guts to pick up a gun and start shooting innocent people I doubt you'll fear the death penalty so this point is illogical...


The media surprisingly isn't the issue here. They're trying to address the situation and help stop it if anything they've helped create awareness. I live in New Zealand and we only hear about the massive shootings on the news, little did I know there had been about 4 times the number of shooting that were actually reported in New Zealand. Also it's not like someone watches the news and goes "oh look a shooting, maybe I'll do that nxt nonth"

Gun control will undoubtedly save lives but the US government is too stupid to see that...


----------



## N e s s (Mar 21, 2018)

Alolan_Apples said:


> There's no need to get angry over the issue.
> 
> I know public shootings keep happening and they need to stop, but nothing can stop them. But if you want some suggestions, here's what I have:
> 
> ...



1. Thousands of schools in the U.S. teach morals for their students. Ever heard of Rachel's Challenge? The girl who DIED in the columbine shooting and her parents discovered her diary that held tons of lessons about helping other people? Schools are doing their best to teach morals, but that isn't going to stop some crazy man 20 years later from elementary school from walking into a school and shooting a ton of people.

2. You seem like the type of person who would agree to "All Lives Matter", what happened to that hm? The solution to killing people shouldn't be killing more people, the death penalty in my opinion is an immoral practice. Nobody, not even a scumbag should be killed. Just lock them up in prison for the rest of their lives and let them think about the **** they committed.

3. hope you realize that you just unintentionally said you support removing freedom of the press lol...we have news stations to keep us informed on everything happening in our country, the Sandy Hook shooting was a tragedy for american history and deserved to be reported on. No amount of censorship is going to stop a shooting.

4. Disagree with your notion of "the senate will never pass gun laws so they can save their seat". If enough people are backlashing a problem that is very present in our society, then the government will eventually take action on it. Thats a very "Oh my vote doesn't matter" mindset, which is in my opinion, a very arrogant thing to say, especially coming from you who is so passionate about politics.


----------



## Hellfish (Mar 21, 2018)

N e s s said:


> 1. Thousands of schools in the U.S. teach morals for their students. Ever heard of Rachel's Challenge? The girl who DIED in the columbine shooting and her parents discovered her diary that held tons of lessons about helping other people? Schools are doing their best to teach morals, but that isn't going to stop some crazy man 20 years later from elementary school from walking into a school and shooting a ton of people.
> 
> 2. You seem like the type of person who would agree to "All Lives Matter", what happened to that hm? The solution to killing people shouldn't be killing more people, the death penalty in my opinion is an immoral practice. Nobody, not even a scumbag should be killed. Just lock them up in prison for the rest of their lives and let them think about the **** they committed.
> 
> ...



Sadly he may be right about the last point which I mentioned in my response above yours. The US government in its current state has no intentions of changing gun laws, hopefully if you get a new president that will change. For now it's hard to be optimistic, it's not like the shootings this year were the first and look how much change has occurred. Considering the US was going to make suppressors easier to obtain makes it seem like Americans votes don't matter.

From my limited knowledge of the country, I'm pretty sure they've tried numerous times in the past to implement regulations and nothing has ever changed (I could be wrong though)


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 22, 2018)

N e s s said:


> 1. Thousands of schools in the U.S. teach morals for their students. Ever heard of Rachel's Challenge? The girl who DIED in the columbine shooting and her parents discovered her diary that held tons of lessons about helping other people? Schools are doing their best to teach morals, but that isn't going to stop some crazy man 20 years later from elementary school from walking into a school and shooting a ton of people.


Didn't know that. Of course, I know all about the mental illness linked shootings. I remember before I suggested asylums for those that are very likely to do so, but that is an intolerant, unethical, and evil (Biblical definition) suggestion, so we're not going with that.



> 2. You seem like the type of person who would agree to "All Lives Matter", what happened to that hm? The solution to killing people shouldn't be killing more people, the death penalty in my opinion is an immoral practice. Nobody, not even a scumbag should be killed. Just lock them up in prison for the rest of their lives and let them think about the **** they committed.


I'm pretty harsh. I can admit that. But I have no heart for a murderer. It doesn't matter how bad the murder is. A murderer is a murderer. And since I'm very passionate over this issue, I support the death penalty.



> 3. hope you realize that you just unintentionally said you support removing freedom of the press lol...we have news stations to keep us informed on everything happening in our country, the Sandy Hook shooting was a tragedy for american history and deserved to be reported on. No amount of censorship is going to stop a shooting.


Interesting fact: I was about to tell people to stop bumping political discussions that have been inactive for over a month (only because bumping old threads is a forum taboo). But I decided not. My wish to stop bumping old political discussions kinda backs that point in the first sentence.

As for that suggestion, I first saw that in the news in response to the latest Florida shooting. But if censorship won't stop, then I wouldn't follow this suggestion.



> 4. Disagree with your notion of "the senate will never pass gun laws so they can save their seat". If enough people are backlashing a problem that is very present in our society, then the government will eventually take action on it. Thats a very "Oh my vote doesn't matter" mindset, which is in my opinion, a very arrogant thing to say, especially coming from you who is so passionate about politics.


Wanna know why it worked in the UK? It's because there were hardly any guns in the first place. But if you want to put a ban on all guns in America, you'll have to get the government to knock on everyone's doors to confiscate guns, not just ban stores from selling guns anymore. If we can't do that, but pass gun control, there can be gun smuggling, which is dangerous.


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 22, 2018)

Alolan_Apples said:


> There's no need to get angry over the issue.
> 
> I know public shootings keep happening and they need to stop, but nothing can stop them. But if you want some suggestions, here's what I have:
> 
> ...


”nothing to get angry about” idk about you but i think that people dying due to gun violence is something to get angry about. this isnt a discussion on what pizza topping is better, it’s a discussion about if people should get to have and carry around weapons to kill people with. it can be kind of upsetting when others think it’s fine that people are dying all over due to unrestrictive gun laws.

people who commit mass shootings often commit suicide, how exactly do you think that would prevent those crimes from happening? the death penalty is a human rights violation and sucks for a number of reasons, and it would be better to prevent peopme from dying instead of killing more people.

media is a problem when it comes to many things but not reporting shootings would be really sketchy. covering things up and not letting people know things leads to conspiracy theories. a key part of democracy is an open and free media and besides with social media things like that will be spread anyway but potentionally in more harmful ways. (false reporting, conspiracies, ”oh hey reddit let’s catch the boston bomber lol” scenarios etc.) 
the media needs to be responsible in how it reports these incidents but to stop reporting them isnt a responsible way to deal with it.

the senators being awful people isnt news but people putting pressure on them might help in passing soemthing lol. the government isnt or at least shouldnt be something that’s just going on without input and influence from the people. with the massive protests that have been going on hopefully some of them will change their minds. public outrage is sometimes pretty efficient in killing careers of politicians





Alolan_Apples said:


> Didn't know that. Of course, I know all about the mental illness linked shootings. I remember before I suggested asylums for those that are very likely to do so, but that is an intolerant, unethical, and evil (Biblical definition) suggestion, so we're not going with that.
> 
> 
> I'm pretty harsh. I can admit that. But I have no heart for a murderer. It doesn't matter how bad the murder is. A murderer is a murderer. And since I'm very passionate over this issue, I support the death penalty.
> ...



removing guns will be a problem but resteicting new guns is something. in sweden there have been some weapon collection things where people can go to the police and give in weapons and guns, im not sure exactly how it works but they have gotten in a lot of weapons. maybe something similar could be done in the us. along with making certain gun ownership illegal or whatever i think it could be something to help removing guns from society. still, it’s a process and the results may not start showing immediately though i do think it will make a big difference after some time.


----------



## vel (Mar 22, 2018)

Alolan_Apples said:


> There's no need to get angry over the issue.



Notice, I never used the word "argue," "upset," I only utilized capitalization to prove my opinion. I was treating this as a debate, in which the topic is something I am passionate about, so kindly do not treat this as a fun thread over jelly beans, and do not dismiss this as "anger," when I debating something I am passionate about. My perspective is based on being a student myself, and being able to relate myself to the same situations, so, of course, I am emotional when talking about these situations.

1. "Nothing can stop them," yes. I know. After so many school shootings, I know. As a student, in the same grade as some of the students that were murdered, I know. However, teaching morals does NOTHING. Same way the school believes teaching people not to do drugs, or not to bully will cause any effect on the student body. It really does nothing, the same way teaching religion doesn't do anything. I have friends attending Christian and Catholic schools who drink, do drugs, and more. They are not affected in the slightest. Additionally, morals and mental health issues are not related, same way video games are not linked to violence. Also, morals are different for everyone, so it wouldn't help much. 
2. There is a difference between consequence/punishment vs. justice.
3. National news needs to keep reporting, to keep informing people, and to keep people active about this. Why in the world would you say they need to stop? You're basically saying, "These LIVES the murderer has taken do not mean anything, it's just another school shooting." 

Lastly, I know nothing will happen, but people still hang on to the hope something will, and that's why people are motivated, to keep protesting for change.


----------



## John Wick (Mar 22, 2018)

Alolan_Apples said:


> I'm pretty harsh. I can admit that. But I have no heart for a murderer. It doesn't matter how bad the murder is. A murderer is a murderer. And since I'm very passionate over this issue, I support the death penalty.




Killing people, who kill people, to _show_ people, that _killing people_, is wrong. :-/


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 22, 2018)

Jon_Snow said:


> Killing people, who kill people, to _show_ people, that _killing people_, is wrong. :-/



I know you find it shocking that there are people who support the death penalty, but I am just as shocked that people would rather keep a murderer alive. I know they would be in jail for a long time, but it's not fair to even let them live if they already killed someone. Many would call the death penalty "cruel and unusual punishment", but I don't think it is, as long as it's not involving anything more brutal than hanging or punishing people that haven't committed murder. But there are some practices that don't involve the death penalty that is "cruel and unusual". Those include, but not limited to:

- not letting prisoners have healthcare
- making prisoners work in insufferable conditions without relief
- solitary confinement for longer than a month

One of them has already been ruled "cruel and unusual", but the other two aren't ruled, but they are cruel. I'm honestly in favor of ending solitary confinement before ending capital punishment.


----------



## Hellfish (Mar 23, 2018)

Alolan_Apples said:


> I know you find it shocking that there are people who support the death penalty, but I am just as shocked that people would rather keep a murderer alive. I know they would be in jail for a long time, but it's not fair to even let them live if they already killed someone. Many would call the death penalty "cruel and unusual punishment", but I don't think it is, as long as it's not involving anything more brutal than hanging or punishing people that haven't committed murder. But there are some practices that don't involve the death penalty that is "cruel and unusual". Those include, but not limited to:
> 
> - not letting prisoners have healthcare
> - making prisoners work in insufferable conditions without relief
> ...



On a minor tangent, while the death penalty is to some degree justifiable, in terms of morals it's rather uncivilized. It's the whole "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" argument, where if your dealt wrong, dealing the same punishment back (while it may be fair 1/2 + 1/2 = a whole) makes you equally as bad as the person who wronged you.

In other words if someone murdered your family member, killing them would make you equally as bad as the murderer. (It doesn't matter if the killing is done by proxy)

That concept is why we don't have the death penalty.


----------



## vel (Mar 23, 2018)

Alolan_Apples said:


> I know you find it shocking that there are people who support the death penalty, but I am just as shocked that people would rather keep a murderer alive.



Punishment vs. Justice. Justice is consequence and rehabilitation. Death row isn't justice, the idea is the person is so far gone they cannot be rehabilitated, and as a consequence, if they continue, they should be killed. If they are changed enough where they could no longer, or would no longer do those actions, or they don't remember their actions, that isn't justice, that's just killing. Stooping that low to kill someone who has killed, that makes the legal system no different than the murderer.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 23, 2018)

Back to the gun subject.

I see people blame video games on guns. I can see a connection, but I don't think they are the cause of shootings becoming more frequently.


----------



## John Wick (Mar 23, 2018)

Alolan_Apples said:


> I know you find it shocking that there are people who support the death penalty, but I am just as shocked that people would rather keep a murderer alive. I know they would be in jail for a long time, but it's not fair to even let them live if they already killed someone. Many would call the death penalty "cruel and unusual punishment", but I don't think it is, as long as it's not involving anything more brutal than hanging or punishing people that haven't committed murder. But there are some practices that don't involve the death penalty that is "cruel and unusual". Those include, but not limited to:
> 
> - not letting prisoners have healthcare
> - making prisoners work in insufferable conditions without relief
> ...



I fought with others to stop the murder of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran. 

What a heartbreaking waste.

They murdered those REFORMED young blokes. 

End the death penalty. 
Anyone involved is an accessory to murder. 

I'm not going to get into a debate. 
It would be pointless, as those are my thought's and nobody will change them.. just as I can't change yours, and won't attempt to. 

If you have an epiphany, and realize how wrong the death penalty is, then great.

When we die, is up to God, and God alone. 

Peace out.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 23, 2018)

vel said:


> gun control IS the answer. guns are the only thing capable of wiping people in seconds. knives, baseball bats, whatever the hell else could kill, but so could dictionaries, scissors, shampoo, those could all kill as well if you want to go to that front. and, like it is, a public SHOOTING. large scale attacks will happen, but at least we are working toward preventing them. accessibility to guns is the problem.



Completely agree, and this is worded very politely and concisely (as understandable as 'anger' would be, that is not present here that I can see so idk why it got the response it did..).

Over the past two decades and change, I have become ever-increasingly grateful that the Australian government at the time of our biggest mass shooting (Port Arthur) chose to value the lives of people over the wishes of a vocal minority and commercial (gun business) interests. I was 12 at the time of that shooting and followed the inquests, investigations, and political debates reasonably closely. There were many ways that the resulting gun control reforms could have been thwarted throughout that process - and there are still a few vocal proponents for overturning those reforms to this day (increasingly few, though, as more tragedies in the USA in particular occur). For all of his many (many, MANY) faults, the conservative Prime Minister at the time acted impeccably in this case.

Gun control - in some form or another - IS the answer. Just as it is the answer in literally every other instance of a hazard or risk of significant injury / loss of life, in the USA and elsewhere in the world. Poisons, medications, vehicles, other types of weapons, even some types of pets are all subject to various types and levels of regulation and control. 

Every right of every human being in every country of this world comes with at least *some* form of restriction. Generally, the rule of thumb is : your "rights" stop where they infringe upon MY "rights", and vice versa. There's always room for debate over exactly where that line should fall, of course.. but then, debate over such things is a part of any healthy society in my view.

Gun control =/= banning all guns. 

Guns aren't banned in my country. They are strictly controlled and regulated, and yet perfectly accessible for suitably responsible adults to purchase and own, subject to the same kinds of red tape as car owners must go through - which is an entirely reasonable situation.


----------



## Jake (Mar 23, 2018)

Whilst the current topic is fine, I'm going to go ahead and lock this here before things get too out of hand. This thread was only bumped because a bot posted in it, and it should have stayed locked away within the pages of Brewsters.


----------

