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

Stop with this slippery slope nonsense, please. Reasonable regulation is just that, reasonable. Just because you have this raging paranoia about one law leading to a police state doesn't mean the rest of us who can abide with common sense rules have to suffer.

 

No, it absolutely does not. We've had a ban on assault rifles, and it didn't lead to a ban on handguns.

 

This case the guns were obtained legally by the mother.

Assault weapons ban - hopefully this can finally be the moment that turns the tide, but you'd have think that Columbine would have done that.

 

I refuse to believe you are this stupid.

 

If people want to protect themselves they should start collecting hand guns and replace them with stun guns. Ordinary citizens with emotional problems are more dangerous than criminals with hand guns. Ordinary citizens doesn't need or should be legal to own hand guns. It will be a slow process but they have to start somewhere.

 

We can't convince gun activists on the far, far right that gun control is necessary, even after shooting after shooting. I would like to think that this tragedy is another wakeup call, but some people hold onto their guns more than their logic.

 

Actually, for most people on the far-right these mass shootings just confirm their beliefs that gun control is horrible.

"IF EVERYONE HAD A GUN AND STARTED A MASS FIREFIGHT IN A CROWDED ELEMENTARY, THE KILLER WOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED!"

 

True. It's sick.

 

5 year olds should hold a gun while in classroom! for God's sake, protect yourselves!

 

Maybe not gun control, just a little more cynical discussion about campus security in safer, suburban school districts. This is just too easy to repeat anywhere at anytime.

 

Stop with the insane logic that guns are used for self defense. If anyone is interested in their well being, they would be more concerned about their eating habits, exercise routines and other bad habits.

That said, stop with the "ban guns rant". Weapons of serious firepower are already heavily regulated as they should be. Heavily regulating semi automatic assault rifles will not deter or reduce mass shootings. Its much easier to sneak in a couple pistols with plenty of ammo into a large crowd than it is to come storming in with an assault rifle.

The trend is to accumulate mass body count, trying to top the previous counts. Shooters are becoming more sophisticated in their goals. It has gone from walking up and start shooting people randomly to chaining doors shut to cornering hundreds to an island. Where others have failed, future offenders will improvise. Explosives have very rarely been used successfully in the past, but I fear we will start seeing them more in the future. Its only a matter of time before someone uses a mild explosives to blow the hinges off classroom doors, trap the entire classroom in and execute them trying to escape, systematically going from one room to another.

Part of the problem is that we have become too soft. We are taught to believe that we are safe in our daily lives and that if something should happen, we should hide and let the police take care of it. When something bad does happen, we feel the need to regulate it to prevent it from happening again. Sure, sometimes this is the better solution, but other times, it can lead to unintended consequences.

 

Here is an interesting journal article on the lack of positive correlation between gun control and violence reduction.

 

You are simply ignorant on this issue. American gun owners have seen the slippery slope already happen in several western nations.

 

In America, guns are used for self defense, on a weekly basis, to stop robberies, assaults, rapes, and murder.

 

Read the article. The guy was a kidnapper. He was trying to get at her. She shot him. The 12 year old defended herself with a Glock. I think it's great that she shot the man trying to hurt her. I think the outcome was a positive one. How can that be stupid?

 

Really? The numbers indicate they are used much more often for suicide, murder, and self inflicted injuries.

 

I'd like to see how many murders were prevented today with guns as opposed to murders committed. I'm betting that one is pretty damn lopsided.

 

It's the Constitution, stupid!

Regardless of what side you are on, one thing is true. Citizens of this country have a right to replace the Govt, even by force. Without a right to bear arms, you could have a tyrant in office and can do nothing about it if he gave himself absolute power. Anyone who says the gun debate is about protecting yourself from robbery is fooling themselves.

What's the likelihood of this happening? Very very low. But this country was founded due to a group of citizens wanting to replace the British Monarchy with another system. The Right To Bear Arms clause was chosen very very strategically to ensure that citizens always have a way to replace the Govt.

Question is simple...would you give up your right to replace your Govt by force if required in order to prevent these kind of shootings from occurring again?

 

Yes, because needing your guns for armed revolution is way more likely than the incredibly unlikely event of scaring off a robbery with your glock. Cue the survivalist crazies with their Red Dawn fetishes.

 

So you think the primary intent of the 2nd Amendment was to allow people to protect themselves from being robbed?

Btw, I don't really agree with it. Just stating a fact. I'd gladly sign a petition to repeal the 2nd Amendment and replace it with something more "modern".