The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

What does eating habits and exercise routines have to do with self-defense? We value our well-being to live today more than we value our well-being to survive to 100.

Let's say guns were outlawed. How do you intend on protecting yourself from a dangerous threat? What if someone brings a sword to a park (knives are silent), a bomb to work (if civilians start developing this weapon it can be much more effective for men who are thinking about shooting up theaters) or even a robber breaks into your home with a gun. In the country we live in today, guns prevent more harm than they cause. How many people do you think thought about robbing someone, or breaking into someone's home but didn't because of the fear of getting shot? As long as the person he's robbing doesn't know he has not bullets (I'm guessing there will be a shortage of them down the line) he will feel like he can do anything and get away with it. Especially if it means he gets to eat.

We can't replace guns, but we can instill rules that say you can't own a gun if you have a kid who is prescribed to drugs that cause mental impairment. Unless, that kid is evaluated and the parent(s) needs the gun due to recent break-ins around his neighborhood.

 

You have some serious talent.

 

She defended herself with a shotgun which nobody is suggesting be taken away.

Handguns and assault weapons are the concern.

 

This x100000. No one is talking about people not being able to own a weapon to hunt with. A shotgun or the like.

We're talking about automatic weapons. Hell, we're talking about freaking assault rifles which can be purchased by any joe off the street at this point.

 

An "incident" happened in China in almost the same time as it happened in the U.S. In fact, the circumstances were almost identical i.e. school children victims (22 vs 20), one mentally unstable perpetrator. There is just one glaring difference. Food for thought.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html

 

The glaring difference being that he used a knife and no one died.

 

THIS.

Why does someone need more than a shotgun? Anyone have a good answer?

 

This twelve year old girl shoots her kidnapper with her Mom's Glock. A far better outcome than her being abducted and raped/murdered.

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defen...h-history-of-kidnapping-using-her-moms-glock/

 

And one key takeaway from the glaring differences (perpetrator used a knife instead of a gun AND the 22 school children victims were injured and NOT killed) is that IF the perpetrator had ready access to guns (as the perpetrator in CT did) those 22 school children could have been dead instead of injured.

 

The logical extent of your argument is that the world is safer when 12 year olds would potentially have access to guns. Are you saying, as a parent, you would put your gun in a place where your child could reach it?

Why does it need to be a glock. Why are shotguns not good enough?

 

Food for thought: most of those poor kids will survive making this knife attack somewhere between TEN AND INFINITY TIMES less deadly. Imagine how many more wold be dead if the killer had had a semiautomatic weapon with loads of bullets. 50? 100?

http://mobile.slate.com/articles/ne...i_automatic_weapons_and_other_high_speed.html

 

Anecdotes do little to help your argument. You should really stop focusing on them. Unless, of course, you realize it's the only thing you have to add to this debate (which appears to be the situation). In which case, carry on with the straw grasping.

 

This seems a very poor counter-argument to the ready-access to gns that the shooter in CT had, but for every article the NRA can find where a gun may have protected a child from rape I suspect you can find multiple articles about children that were accidentally killed from a gun:

 

Yeah also this. As good as it is that that poor girl wasn't harmed, I'd say that having a gun in the household is still more likely to harm MORE young children. As a parent I'd never keep a gun in my household.

 

I don't own a gun and never will...

 

No, certainly not. I'm saying the primary intent doesn't matter any more. That time is just over.

 

I don't know that outlawing guns is really realistic but having increased controls is certainly feasible. I honestly think all gun purchases should require training like you get for a concealed handgun license. It's insane that any dumbass can show up at Walmart or something and take home a semi auto assault rifle. People talk about cars kill more people than guns but cars are registered, drivers need a license, people need insurance to drive. This isn't the wild west. The current situation is unacceptable.

 

You would be surprised the seemingly benign things that, put together, can Mae a bomb. Add in nails and screws as shrapnel, and it is deadly.

 

They have nothing to do with each other. But as you so elegantly pointed out, if someone was truly concerned with their well being, they wouldn't shovel crap in their mouth or their kids day in and day out.

Im not advocating that guns should be banned, quite the opposite. Im simply stating that using self defense as a reason to own a gun is very poor excuse. Im not fond of many of the people concealed carrying all the time. Im not fond of the idea of people having a loaded gun by their bedside and never practicing with it. It comes down to being responsible and mentally ready when it comes to using it. Most gun owners are responsible, I just do not have confidence of their decision making or readiness in the heat of the moment.

 

Considering that there are already hundreds of millions of guns out there in the wild, as well as the second amendment (the chance of repealing or amending that is slim)...any kind of improved meaningful gun regulation is going to be very difficult to accomplish. The proliferation of existing firearms is just too vast. Nevertheless, we have to try. I'm still strongly in favor of responsible citizens being able to obtain firearms, but we need tougher regulations on obtaining those guns...not only does the citizen need to be carefully evaluated, but so does his/her household. And I hate to say this (it arguably brings the US a bit closer to being a "police state", which I don't like), but we may need to consider ideas for occasionally re-evaluating existing gun-owning citizens and households, because the "condition" of gun-owning households is subject to change over time. If the citizen doesn't like that, then he can choose not to own a gun. Perhaps we should also consider imposing limits on the number of guns a citizen or household is allowed to possess. The more guns, the greater the risk that the person might get careless and leave one of those guns in an area accessible to kids or "questionable" friends or neighbors.

We should also restrict where people can buy guns and ammo. I don't like that people can go to Walmart to buy a firearm.

I'd like the federal government to implement a reasonably tough baseline of gun regulation, which all states are required to comply with. If specific states or localities want to go beyond that, that's fine. But I'm not sure if this is possible without a new amendment that repeals the 2nd amendment and institutes a modernized version. If so, the idea would have to be carefully crafted and pitched to states and the people. And even then it would be tough to reach that three-fourths threshold of state ratification, since many states are solidly Republican.

Regulations should be especially tough for automatic weapons. I'm less concerned about revolvers, shotguns and hunting rifles. However, it is possible for someone with some mechanical know-how to modify a non-auto handgun or rifle into an auto.

There is also this issue of carrying concealed guns in public institutions, such as schools, university campuses, malls, theaters, churches, workplace offices and campuses, stadiums, etc. I am completely against arming teachers - they're already under enough stress trying to do their normal job (teach and keep rowdy kids under control). Likewise with employees in other industries. Stress + Gun = a dangerous combination. Negative emotional state (e.g. due to getting fired or reprimanded) + Gun = also dangerous. I am completely against arming college students...(a) many of them are pretty damn immature and/or in party and binge-drinking mode, and (b) it's common to be stressed prior to an exam or something. A better idea is to have more inconspicuous highly trained armed guards at these locations, both inside and outside buildings. Inconspicuous so that they don't scare children, etc. But even that's only going to have limited effectiveness, especially at wide-open locations such as college campuses or large parking lots.

That said, I'd also like the United States to focus much more seriously on the other big issue here - the issue of mental illness. This Connecticut gunman apparently had a history of mental illness. We need improvements on identifying people who are mentally unhealthy or exhibit symptoms of mental problems, and they need to be closely observed, and we need better mandatory ways to help them. Easier said than done, but we gotta try.

It's impossible to 100% prevent these mass shootings. Someone determined and cunning enough will find a way to succeed, no matter what additional safeguards and increased regulatory controls we put in place. The country and world are huge places and we can't have eyes everywhere. But it is possible to reduce their likelihood by taking a multifaceted approach to tackling the problem. Reduction is better than the government sitting on their collective asses doing nothing but slinging putrid dog dung at each other.