[QUOTE=Timebomb575;49312983]so what is the real cause then?
hint: it isn't the guns because firearms technology (at least what has been available to civilians) hasn't changed dramatically since the 1950s, and mass school shootings are a relatively new phenomenon.
[t]http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/78105c8/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F81%2Fa3%2F33af15a04f1794d7e4be9056879b%2F141120data-shootings-graphic.png[/t][/QUOTE]
a conglomeration of issues i would assume i never claimed to know i just saw that dude spouting some obvious bullshit and called him on it i like guns i dont wanna lose them but from what ive seen peopel r also quick to jump to "mentall illness caused this"
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;49312980]If overall crime (including gun violence) is going down, along with increased gun restriction, but the regularity of school shootings is going up, then what do you think the problem is?
Sounds to me like [b]guns are the scapegoat, feel good solution[/b], not mental health.[/QUOTE]
While guns are used as scapegoat, it doesn't mean they are automatically not a problem. It's pretty obvious that there are a lot of factors to take into consideration when it comes to school shootings and guns are definitely one of them whether you like it or not.
[QUOTE=Nautsabes;49313014]a conglomeration of issues i would assume i never claimed to know i just saw that dude spouting some obvious bullshit and called him on it i like guns i dont wanna lose them but from what ive seen peopel r also quick to jump to "mentall illness caused this"[/QUOTE]
I get what you're saying but realistically mental illness [I]did[/I] cause it
it's just weird that people would jump to "guns caused this" (I know you didnt say that but some people do) yet when you look at what's changed during the rise of mass shootings, guns are only thing that really havent changed. stuff like the way mental illness is treated, and the way mass shootings are portrayed in the media, on the other hand, has
[editline]14th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49313026]While guns are used as scapegoat, it doesn't mean they are automatically not a problem. It's pretty obvious that there are a lot of factors to take into consideration when it comes to school shootings and guns are definitely one of them whether you like it or not.[/QUOTE]
like I said though, looking at all the other factors, guns are likely the smallest
if that weren't the case, mass shootings would have been happening since semi-auto weapons became available to civilians, which isn't true.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;49313035]I get what you're saying but realistically mental illness [I]did[/I] cause it
it's just weird that people would jump to "guns caused this" (I know you didnt say that but some people do) yet when you look at what's changed during the rise of mass shootings, guns are only thing that really havent changed. stuff like the way mental illness is treated, and the way mass shootings are portrayed in the media, on the other hand, has[/QUOTE]
You are failing to look at the bigger picture here. BOTH guns and mental illness are contributing factors to the problem. Trying to shift all the blame onto mental health is the wrong way to go about handling this. The same goes with trying to shift all the blame onto guns.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;49312983]so what is the real cause then?
hint: it isn't the guns because firearms technology (at least what has been available to civilians) hasn't changed dramatically since the 1950s, and mass school shootings are a relatively new phenomenon.
[t]http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/78105c8/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F81%2Fa3%2F33af15a04f1794d7e4be9056879b%2F141120data-shootings-graphic.png[/t][/QUOTE]
also ther were 112 school shootings int he us alone since 1950 to 2000, and thats only school schootings. i dont think they are a recent phenomena
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49313046]You are failing to look at the bigger picture here. BOTH guns and mental illness are contributing factors to the problem. Trying to shift all the blame onto mental health is the wrong way to go about handling this. The same goes with trying to shift all the blame onto guns.[/QUOTE]
if it's simply guns + mental illness = mass shootings, why have they only really become a thing in the past 30 years?
"assault weapons", handguns, etc have been around and available to civilians for a hell of a lot longer than that.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;49313054]if it's simply guns + mental illness = mass shootings, why have they only really become a thing in the past 30 years?
"assault weapons", handguns, etc have been around and available to civilians for a hell of a lot longer than that.[/QUOTE]
It's not just guns and mental illness. It's a lot of factors. Poverty. Culture. Media. Tonnes of things. I'm just saying that dismissing guns as part of the problem (even if its only a small part) is close-minded.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;49313054]if it's simply guns + mental illness = mass shootings, why have they only really become a thing in the past 30 years?
[/QUOTE]
they have been a thing for more than 30 years dude
[QUOTE=Nautsabes;49313049]also ther were 112 school shootings int he us alone since 1950 to 2000, and thats only school schootings. i dont think they are a recent phenomena[/QUOTE]
you said yourself that 160 occurred in the 10 year period between 2000 and 2010, which is more than what occurred (as you just said) in the entire[B] 50 years[/B] prior
clearly something has changed here, and once again, it isnt firearms technology or availability
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;49313070]you said yourself that 160 occurred in the 10 year period between 2000 and 2010, which is more than what occurred (as you just said) in the entire[B] 50 years[/B] prior
clearly something has changed here, and once again, it isnt firearms technology or availability[/QUOTE]
what does that matter? any shcool shootings is too many dude? what is the acceptable number of shootings that should be allowed? regardless if they have been increasing in frquency they are still a thing thats been happening is great numbers for many years. and you keep saying "mass shooting" while im referring to school shootings specifically. if i include my criteria to include mass shootings (4+dead people), im sure my numbers will be even highger
[QUOTE=Nautsabes;49313066]they have been a thing for more than 30 years dude[/QUOTE]
so is the graph I posted there wrong or something?
it seems to pretty clearly indicate that [B]mass shootings[/B] are a recent trend
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;49313080]so is the graph I posted there wrong or something?
it seems to pretty clearly indicate that [B]mass shootings[/B] are a recent trend[/QUOTE]
the only thing that seperates a mass shooting from a non-mass shooting is the numnber of victiims.
i guess in our violence saturated culture people are becomign better shots?
[QUOTE=Nautsabes;49313075]what does that matter? any shcool shootings is too many dude? what is the acceptable number of shootings that should be allowed? regardless if they have been increasing in frquency they are still a thing thats been happening is great numbers for many years[/QUOTE]
uh yeah I totally agree with you here?? there isnt an acceptable number of school shootings, the acceptable number is 0
Im saying that guns have not lead to the recent surge of school/mass shootings and saying "if we just ban scary assolt wepuns" is about as far from a solution as it is possible to be
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;49313095]uh yeah I totally agree with you here?? there isnt an acceptable number of school shootings, the acceptable number is 0
Im saying that guns have not lead to the recent surge of school/mass shootings and saying "if we just ban scary assolt wepuns" is about as far from a solution as it is possible to be[/QUOTE]
No one said guns caused mass shootings. We just said they are used to commit them. Is this concept so difficult to understand?
""mass shooting" while im referring to school shootings specifically. if i include my criteria to include mass shootings (4+dead people), im sure my numbers will be even highger"
now, school shootings arent necessarily mass shootings and now u seem to be combinging/referring to both as one and the same? and i never said anythign about banning scary assolt weapon idek who brought that up cuz it wasnt me.
[QUOTE=Nautsabes;49313093]the only thing that seperates a mass shooting from a non-mass shooting is the numnber of victiims.
i guess in our violence saturated culture people are becomign better shots?[/QUOTE]
yeah i genuinely have no idea what [I]has[/I] lead to the rise of mass shootings, tbh
maybe something to do with the increased connected-ness of people because of technology and the way the media has changed such that it now portrays mass shootings as spectacles? Im sure smarter men than me are doing that kind of research as we speak
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;49313101]yeah i genuinely have no idea what [I]has[/I] lead to the rise of mass shootings, tbh
maybe something to do with the increased connected-ness of people because of technology and the way the media has changed such that it now portrays mass shootings as spectacles? Im sure smarter men than me are doing that kind of research as we speak[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'd say you're onto something. Most likely a lot of them are suicidal people who want to go out in a "blaze of glory". They want to be remembered and not forgotten I suppose. The media sort of gets really fixated on the shooter (instead of the victims) and they basically become posthumously (assuming they killed themselves at the end) famous in a way. It's pretty disgusting honestly. Only someone with some pretty serious mental health issues and a questionable moral character would do something so terrible.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;49312136]how did you know they didn't have firearms?
if you'd stood out with an AK and they had been armed, it's likely they would have seen you as an immediate threat to their lives and panicked and shot you. and they outnumbered you so don't tell me you'd have shot both of them before getting yourself killed
you are insanely lucky to be alive. what a stupid thing to do[/QUOTE]
I had my sights on the door before it went down. I would have opened fire the second I saw a firearm, and it was highly unlikely they'd be carrying AKs with 75rd drum magazines like I was. The mere act of firing a short-barreled 7.62 firearm indoors would have blinded them (muzzle flash) and deafened them, like a shitload of flashbangs going off. My dumb ass had fired it too many times before without hearing protection so I wouldn't have been as discombobulated from it.
Have you ever had your home broken into, have you ever been robbed by an armed individual, or a victim of attempted rape? You've been sitting here recently dropping a bunch of hypotheticals, saying, "Well if you did this..." when you have zero experience in any of those situations. Real life doesn't work like your land of sunshine and roses. Real life criminals are hyped up on adrenaline and often other drugs, they aren't thinking rationally. They don't see an unarmed person and go, "Oh I don't need to beat this guy's ass I'll just let him sit there while I rob his house." They see someone in the house, oh shit we thought it was empty, oh shit he's a witness, god damn he heard our voices, we gotta take him out.
Based on your logic, I should have just greeted the guys in a friendly manner and said, "Take all of my shit and please don't hurt me," that truly would have had a better chance at preventing that tire iron from entering my skull than having a weapon on me would. The problem with your solution is it puts control of your life in someone else's hands, which in turn means you have no right to live. The second you give someone else control over your life, you have sacrificed your right to live. I would rather fight for my life and have a shootout with some thugs breaking into my house than wait and pray they don't murder my ass, because the former means I am taking control of my life and fighting for it. Relying on the sympathy of human beings, inherently violent creatures, is living in la-la land incarnate. Must be real nice living wealthy with no worries in the world, surrounded by peaceful people, and assuming the whole goddamn world is like that. Until the unfortunate day comes when you're graced by the presence of a scum of the earth, and you realize being unarmed doesn't garner as much sympathy from a drugged out thug as you may have thought.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;49312151]-proof Liberalism is a mental disorder-[/QUOTE]
0.001% of the population per year, there is no problem. Don't play the dead people card with me bud I lost 3 cousins in separate school shootings and I'm speaking at city council meetings to get some teachers in some schools armed.
Tell me where are these terrorists getting these guns? BLACK MARKET. If you want to vent fear, vent it at evil people in the world. What there needs to be is IMMIGRATION CONTROL for people that come in here, not gun control. There are over 20,000 laws on the books already for guns and you're still going MOAR MR. GOVERNMENT MOAR LAWS! Because CLEARLY criminals obey the already 20,000 on the books! 20,000 laws, 35,000 dead per year (take out suicides you're looking at 11,000) so that's 11,000. So clearly terrorists are going to obey those 20,000 laws. People like you and your feelings are doing nothing but disarming innocent people and getting people killed.
There's more gun laws than people who are killed in homicides with guns! Why were there so little shootings in the 50's 60's and 70's? Because you didn't need a card to own a firearm, when Clinton had one of his dumbass moments and signed that into law, guess what. Gun violence soared. But that's not Clinton's fault, it is the fault of a man who was shot with Reagen and was paralyzed from the waist down and he proposed that people need a card to own a gun, Clinton just felt bad and signed it in to not look like an asshole. So just because he's paralyzed he punished the entire nation, and you call people like me selfish?
The reason school shootings have increased is because in the 50's they were not gun free zones, in fact there were even classes teaching children how to shoot rifles.
Oh and here's your facts, princess.
[URL]http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/07/18108298-gun-violence-in-us-has-fallen-dramatically-over-past-20-years-justice-dept-report-finds?lite[/URL]
[URL]http://www.ammoland.com/2014/03/gun-ownership-up-crime-rate-down/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/12/04/washington-post-gun-violence-declining-except-gun-free-zones/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.ccrkba.org/?p=4093[/URL]
[URL]http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.examiner.com/article/crime-rates-continue-decline-while-gun-ownership-continues-to-rise[/URL]
[URL]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/07/gun-crime-drops-but-americans-think-its-worse/2139421/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/16217-virginia-sees-violent-crime-fall-as-gun-sales-rise[/URL]
[URL="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/02/19/fbi-report-shows-violent-crime-decreased-as-gun-purchases-increased/"]http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/13/reality-check-guns-sales-up-crimes-committed-with-guns-down-n1851342
[/URL][URL="http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-violence-plummets-and-gun-control-groups-demand-course-change-but-why"]http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-violence-plummets-and-gun-control-groups-demand-course-change-but-why
[/URL][URL]http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm[/URL]
[URL]http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/[/URL]
That CDC study in the last link is devastating. Even I didn't know about some of those facts.
[editline]14th December 2015[/editline]
We can argue back and forth about hypotheticals involving self-defense but being able to own a gun atleast gives you that option, the absolute last resort. I generally agree with the idea that absolutely none of the property I own is worth another persons life so I can't say I'd definitely open up on a dude taking my computer or my PS4 but you can't count every scenario as being able to hide or barricade myself while someone gets away then file a report with the police. It's entirely possible someone entering my house could have the means or intention to hurt me and I like the piece of mind of having a method of self defense. And that's what it is, peace of mind. Not me living out a fantasy about being the hero gunning down ruthless thugs. I owned a gun for a short time a few years back and I am absolutely happy it stayed in the place I put it: Locked up in the closet, unloaded.
[editline]14th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rusty100;49312158]in case u didnt notice i had stopped pointlessly arguing my fundamental disagreement with the right to bear arms
except to tell maverickib that he's far more likely to get killed by pulling a gun on intruders if they too are armed with guns (which id wager there is no way to tell until you've got a clear view)[/QUOTE]
I'd also just like to point out real quick that the reason why these debates feel pointless and your opponents feel intractable is exactly what someone else pointed out earlier: there is no compromise when it comes to gun control. Gun owners want gun laws to remain at at a value of 1 while people who want to regulate guns want to bring that value down to .5. So realizing that no one is going to go for such a sharp decrease in personal liberty they scale back their regulation attempts to a modest .8 and call it compromise. But only one side gained anything in this transaction. Gun owners only lost.
Your opponents stand to gain absolutely nothing with giving in to any of your demands because they only lose rights in exchange for a dubious level of security, a level of security your opponents already feel they have by not compromising on the very thing they are debating.
If they do an outright ban on assault weapons or any kind of gun, there is a chance of a civil war breaking out. Its something our founding fathers preached, its something millions of americans feel deeply about and there is no way that a prohibition could realistically work without bloodshed. Don't compare the culture of Europe and Australia to America, there is no comparison.
[QUOTE=Paxton;49314226]0.001% of the population per year, there is no problem. Don't play the dead people card with me bud I lost 3 cousins in separate school shootings and I'm speaking at city console meetings to get some teachers in some schools armed.
[B]
Tell me where are these terrorists getting these guns? BLACK MARKET.[/B] If you want to vent fear, vent it at evil people in the world. What there needs to be is IMMIGRATION CONTROL for people that come in here, not gun control. There are over 20,000 laws on the books already for guns and you're still going MOAR MR. GOVERNMENT MOAR LAWS! Because CLEARLY criminals obey the already 20,000 on the books! 20,000 laws, 35,000 dead per year (take out suicides you're looking at 11,000) so that's 11,000. So clearly terrorists are going to obey those 20,000 laws. People like you and your feelings are doing nothing but disarming innocent people and getting people killed.
There's more gun laws than people who are killed in homicides with guns! Why were there so little shootings in the 50's 60's and 70's? Because you didn't need a card to own a firearm, when Clinton had one of his dumbass moments and signed that into law, guess what. Gun violence soared. But that's not Clinton's fault, it is the fault of a man who was shot with Reagen and was paralyzed from the waist down and he proposed that people need a card to own a gun, Clinton just felt bad and signed it in to not look like an asshole. So just because he's paralyzed he punished the entire nation, and you call people like me selfish?
The reason school shootings have increased is because in the 50's they were not gun free zones, in fact there were even classes teaching children how to shoot rifles.
[/QUOTE]
Where do you think the black market gets its guns from? Almost all illegal guns start their lives as legal guns until they are stolen or sold in a straw purchase. If less legal guns are being produced for civilian use, less illegal guns get the opportunity to exist in circulation.
[QUOTE=Paxton;49314226]Oh and here's your facts, princess.[/QUOTE]
I Googled "Are guns effective for self defence" earlier and came across plenty of very similar sources to these with research saying they weren't. People aren't going to believe it regardless how much research is done to disprove what they believe. You link them this stuff and they'll say the sources are biased, especially if you're posting articles from gunsandammo.com.
Anyway I took the liberty of looking at those articles. Most of them are essentially saying the same thing. "Gun violence down, gun ownership up." I don't doubt this, since these seem like well researched articles which corroborate each other. However, just because gun ownership is up doesn't mean that its the reason for the reduction in gun violence. I'm sorry, but as we all know, correlation is not causation.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49315043]I Googled "Are guns effective for self defence" earlier and came across plenty of very similar sources to these with research saying they weren't. People aren't going to believe it regardless how much research is done to disprove what they believe. You link them this stuff and they'll say the sources are biased, especially if you're posting articles from gunsandammo.com.
Anyway I took the liberty of looking at those articles. Most of them are essentially saying the same thing. "Gun violence down, gun ownership up." I don't doubt this, since these seem like well researched articles which corroborate each other. However, just because gun ownership is up doesn't mean that its the reason for the reduction in gun violence. I'm sorry, but as we all know, correlation is not causation.[/QUOTE]
Gun ownership doesn't necessarily make for less violence (please stop using the term gun violence, it's disingenuous) but all statistics seem to indicate that it doesn't make things more violent. The reasons people commit crime are far more nuanced than the tool they use to commit the crime.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49315152]Gun ownership doesn't necessarily make for less violence (please stop using the term gun violence, it's disingenuous) but all statistics seem to indicate that it doesn't make things more violent. The reasons people commit crime are far more nuanced than the tool they use to commit the crime.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure its quite obvious that guns don't make people commit crimes, they are tools used to commit them. Also, I only said gun violence because its the wording the articles used.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49315043]I Googled "Are guns effective for self defence" earlier and came across plenty of very similar sources to these with research saying they weren't. People aren't going to believe it regardless how much research is done to disprove what they believe. You link them this stuff and they'll say the sources are biased, especially if you're posting articles from gunsandammo.com.
Anyway I took the liberty of looking at those articles. Most of them are essentially saying the same thing. "Gun violence down, gun ownership up." I don't doubt this, since these seem like well researched articles which corroborate each other. However, just because gun ownership is up doesn't mean that its the reason for the reduction in gun violence. I'm sorry, but as we all know, correlation is not causation.[/QUOTE]
Typical, wants statistics, gets an overwhelming list of them that don't fit his narrative and promptly dismisses, even when some of them come directly from the legal authorities on the subject.
What a surprise.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49314443]
I'd also just like to point out real quick that the reason why these debates feel pointless and your opponents feel intractable is exactly what someone else pointed out earlier: there is no compromise when it comes to gun control. Gun owners want gun laws to remain at at a value of 1 while people who want to regulate guns want to bring that value down to .5. So realizing that no one is going to go for such a sharp decrease in personal liberty they scale back their regulation attempts to a modest .8 and call it compromise. But only one side gained anything in this transaction. Gun owners only lost.
Your opponents stand to gain absolutely nothing with giving in to any of your demands because they only lose rights in exchange for a dubious level of security, a level of security your opponents already feel they have by not compromising on the very thing they are debating.[/QUOTE]
This. I made a post about exactly this a week earlier that is relevant to this debate.
[QUOTE=dragon1972;49232889]A lot of the friction I'm seeing against gun ownership seems to come from the position that people cannot be trusted with firearms and that the government's prerogative should be to protect the people in situations like this through various government institutions such as law enforcement. Conversely, the other side seems to think that the government cannot be trusted to effectively defend the lives of its citizens when shootings like these happen due to incompetence and unpunctuality of these institutions.
As with all rights, gun ownership has consequences and tradeoffs. The right to free speech comes with it the consequences that people can say mean things, offend people, hurt peoples' feelings, and engage in behavior that is defined by many as "bullying"; however, free speech also allows people to debate freely without fear of reprimand on even the most hot-button issues. If we did not have free speech, for example, we could not be having this debate over gun control right now. It allows criticism of policy that can lead to more effective functioning of the government or better results for the people. It also allows people to express who they truly believe they are. The second amendment brings with it the consequences that bad people can sometimes attain firearms and commit killings with them due to the prevalence of firearms in circulation regardless of legislation against criminal gun ownership, and also that violence that occurs is sometimes more intense than it would have otherwise been without firearms. On the other hand, gun ownership also has positive qualities. People, when law permits them, are allowed to own firearms so that they can defend their lives when they are threatened. It also gives people the tools they need to fight in any kind of insurrection if they feel that they absolutely need to. Additionally, it also gives many people access to alternative means of feeding their families, and it also allows for many kinds of hobbies such as shooting sports and hunting.
It's almost impossible to form a consensus on this issue because the cost-benefit analysis of firearms ownership is inherently skewed by the concepts that are important to left and right wing political ideologies. People on the left tend to believe that the government should be able to competently provide for peoples' safety in any kind of scenario where they are threatened. They also do not see the consequences of innocent people dying to bad guys with guns as a price worth footing for allowing firearms to be owned. The right tends to believe that it is ideal that people have the ability and tools to be capable of defending themselves because the government cannot be trusted to do that for them whether that is due to incompetence, a fear of tyranny, or simple logistical issues. People on the right tend to fear that they will not have a gun when they need it, and also that the police may not arrive in time to assist them. They see gun rights as a method of mitigating the violence caused by other people with firearms. Both of these positions stem from the ideas that both left and right wing ideologies hold as the best way to govern people. The left believes in strong government that cares for every need of its citizens, and the right believes in limited government and the power of the individual to take care of his or herself.
It is damn near impossible to reconcile these two positions because there is very little room for any sort of middle ground. Gun owners have already conceded ground in their rights by allowing automatic weapons, short barreled rifles, suppressors, and some other kinds of firearms to be regulated under the National Firearms Act. Gun owners have allowed for people to be subject to background checks, and waiting periods have been introduced in some states. Government has indeed attempted to find a middle ground between full unlimited gun ownership and a complete ban and confiscation, but it is clear that these attempts have done little to prevent any kinds of mass shootings. An example that would be more relevant to current events would be that California has already tried to restrict many types of firearms, specifically rifles, that the state deems to be dangerous. Everything from banning firearms by name to restricting magazine capacity and various superficial ergonomic features. There is little that can be done short of total banning and confiscation that would cause any sort of noticeable impact on violent gun crime in terms of legislation that deals directly with restricting firearms. Considering that such policy would directly violate the second amendment, it would be extremely difficult to pass any legislation such as that without a two thirds majority in both houses to repeal the second amendment which, according to the current political climate, would be impossible. Even in the event that firearms were banned and confiscated, it is entirely possible that illegal firearms trafficking in the US could rise. It is a similar situation to prohibition where Americans did not drink less than they used to, they just circumvented law to do so.
The institutions that we trust to protect us, the national guard and the police, cannot be at the scene of any shooting as soon as it happens. It can take minutes or hours for police to arrive, and by that point, the shooter will have likely killed many people. In a nation as vast as the United States the government cannot feasibly be everywhere to protect everyone at all times, and there needs to be some kind of ability for people to protect themselves when the government cannot. When it is clear that restrictive legislation does little to prevent such horrific shootings such as this, we must look for solutions in other ways. Maybe being more permissive for legal gun owners to carry in public places is an answer, or maybe not. Whatever solution is proposed, it must be based clearly in empirical evidence and not on baseless assumptions or damaged feelings.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;49312983]so what is the real cause then?
hint: it isn't the guns because firearms technology (at least what has been available to civilians) hasn't changed dramatically since the 1950s, and mass school shootings are a relatively new phenomenon.
[t]http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/78105c8/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F81%2Fa3%2F33af15a04f1794d7e4be9056879b%2F141120data-shootings-graphic.png[/t][/QUOTE]
Nobody is saying guns are the cause. Guns are just an object. By their own, they can literally do nothing.
However, guns do enable people to carry out these atrocities easier, which is what people are trying to prevent.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;49315805]Nobody is saying guns are the cause. Guns are just an object. By their own, they can literally do nothing.
However, guns do enable people to carry out these atrocities easier, which is what people are trying to prevent.[/QUOTE]
Extensive gun control did not stop the Paris attacks.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;49315805]Nobody is saying guns are the cause. Guns are just an object. By their own, they can literally do nothing.
However, guns do enable people to carry out these atrocities easier, which is what people are trying to prevent.[/QUOTE]
By atrocities do you mean run of the mill violent crimes, or mass shootings?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
