General Gun Violence/Gun Control

[Sabex]

Killing the killer doesn't seem to be the problem. Most of them are killed AFTER they have gunned down multiple people.

Not if you can stop them before they do more damage, like this absolute Chad:

Three people are dead after a man opened fire in an Indianapolis mall. The shooter was killed by a 'good Samaritan,' police said.

Who knows how many more would have died without this brave and responsible young man's actions.

 

[SouthAussie]

Not if you can stop them before they do more damage, like this absolute Chad:

Three people are dead after a man opened fire in an Indianapolis mall. The shooter was killed by a 'good Samaritan,' police said.

Who knows how many more would have died without this brave and responsible young man's actions.

As I said, most killers are killed AFTER they have gunned down multiple people. Which is the case in your linked article.

 

[Sabex]

As I said, most killers are killed AFTER they have gunned down multiple people. Which is the case in your linked article.

I'm not denying that. The potential deaths in that case could potentially have been an order of magnitude higher without our good Samaritan though.

Consider the deterrent effect too - attempting a mass shooting is going to be less fun for one of these maniacs if they know that as soon as they start shooting they're going to get put down immediately.

I don't know for sure, but I bet most of these spree type shootings occur in gun free zones for exactly that reason.

EDIT: Typo, clarity

 

[SouthAussie]

I'm not denying that. The potential deaths in that case could potentially have been an order of magnitude higher though.

Consider the deterrent effect too - atrempting a mass shooting is going to be less fun for one of these maniacs if they know that as soon as they start shooting they're going to get put down immediately.

I don't know for sure, but I bet most of these spree type shootings occur in gun free zones for exactly that reason.

The potential deaths in any mass shooting could be higher, if the killer isn't killed. The killer is always stopped by someone, at some point.

The problem is pulling together cohesive laws that will help to stop the killer BEFORE he/she kills multiple people.

Putting guns into more people's hands won't be the answer(s).
We have already discussed the reluctance of many to kill another person, no matter what that person is doing.

 

[MyBelle]

Not if you can stop them before they do more damage, like this absolute Chad:

Three people are dead after a man opened fire in an Indianapolis mall. The shooter was killed by a 'good Samaritan,' police said.

Who knows how many more would have died without this brave and responsible young man's actions.

Three people still died before the "good Samaritan" was able to fire a single shot. If the nutjob shooter had not had access to a weapon, NOBODY would have been shot. Indiana has incredibly lax gun control laws.

jmo

 

[Sabex]

I'd argue that the solution is exactly that - more guns in the hands of the good guys. Many more.

Teach it in civics class - if you aren't willing to carry a firearm for your own defence and the defence of others then you should be looked down on as not accepting your civic responsibility.

I used to live in one of the most drug and crime riddled cities in the UK. I had guns pointed at me twice. At any point, I could have had an illegal firearm (with ammunition) delivered to my house within the hour for about £150. And that's in the UK where there are the tightest gun restrictions in the world!

Criminals break the law. Funny, I know, but making things illegal does not prevent criminals from obtaining them - I just prevents the good guys from getting them as well.

 

[MyBelle]

I'd argue that the solution is exactly that - more guns in the hands of the good guys. Many more.

Teach it in civics class - if you aren't willing to carry a firearm for your own defence and the defence of others then you should be looked down on as not accepting your civic responsibility.

I used to live in one of the most drug and crime riddled cities in the UK. I had guns pointed at me twice. At any point, I could have had an illegal firearm (with ammunition) delivered to my house within the hour for about £150. And that's in the UK where there are the tightest gun restrictions in the world!

Criminals break the law. Funny, I know, but making things illegal does not prevent criminals from obtaining them - I just prevents the good guys from getting them as well.

BBM. Were those "good guys" who were pointing the guns at you?

Nobody here is advocating that good guys should not have guns. The problem is that guns in the U.S. are too easily available to those who shouldn't have any access to guns because they are mentally unstable.

 

[Cota332]

That statistic was artfully conceived by a pro-gun rights economist, John Lott.

"... extremely misleading. It uses inappropriate statistical methods to obscure the reality that mass shootings are very rare in most countries, so that when they do happen they have an outsized statistical effect. Of the countries chosen by Lott for his analysis, the United States is by some distance the most consistent site of mass shootings."

FACT CHECK

If you look at this graph, it is very clear that the US has mass shooting deaths each and every year.
The other countries have none for most years, and an isolated incident once or twice during the chosen 7-year time period.

View attachment 422145

The quote clearly says per capita

 

[Sabex]

Three people still died before the "good Samaritan" was able to fire a single shot. If the nutjob shooter had not had access to a weapon, NOBODY would have been shot. Indiana has incredibly lax gun control laws.

jmo

See my post above that kind of addresses your point.

I'm pretty sure that Fentanyl is tightly controlled if not illegal in many places - if banning things worked, you'd have zero Fentanyl addictions and deaths in the US. Is that the case?

 

[Sabex]

BBM. Were those "good guys" who were pointing the guns at you?

Nobody here is advocating that good guys should not have guns. The problem is that guns in the U.S. are too easily available to those who shouldn't have any access to guns because they are mentally unstable.

They most certainly were not good guys.

Just proof that control laws don't actually control. They just make it harder for the good guys, and criminals will circumvent the law.

 

[MyBelle]

The potential deaths in any mass shooting could be higher, if the killer isn't killed. The killer is always stopped by someone, at some point.

The problem is pulling together cohesive laws that will help to stop the killer BEFORE he/she kills multiple people.

Putting guns into more people's hands won't be the answer(s).
We have already discussed the reluctance of many to kill another person, no matter what that person is doing.

BBM. The real problem are the hypocritical politicians who prioritize $$$$ from the gun lobby rather than the value of human lives. The same politicians claim to be "pro-life." It truly does disgust me.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

They most certainly were not good guys.

Just proof that control laws don't actually control. They just make it harder for the good guys, and criminals will circumvent the law.

The recent mass shootings in the US were by mentally unstable people who legally obtained their assault weapons.

JMO

 

[SouthAussie]

Criminals break the law. Funny, I know, but making things illegal does not prevent criminals from obtaining them - I just prevents the good guys from getting them as well.

I agree that it is a common argument in the ongoing gun debate.

When you look at the sheer quantity of guns manufactured in the US, year after year after year, the gun makers are simply pumping out more and more and more guns.
Guns that rarely wither and become unusable, thereby increasing - by the millions - the guns in circulation.

And making HUGE profits $$$$$$$$ at the expense of criminality and people's lives.

Look to the source. Gun profiteers and pathetically weak laws.

Firearms manufactured U.S. 2022| Statista

In 2022, around 13.4 million firearms were manufactured in the United States.

www.statista.com

 

[MyBelle]

See my post above that kind of addresses your point.

I'm pretty sure that Fentanyl is tightly controlled if not illegal in many places - if banning things worked, you'd have zero Fentanyl addictions and deaths in the US. Is that the case?

Fentanyl is pouring across our nation's southern border by drug cartels. It has absolutely nothing to do with gun violence, which is the topic of this thread.

JMO

 

[Cota332]

Fentanyl is pouring across our nation's southern border by drug cartels. It has absolutely nothing to do with gun violence, which is the topic of this thread.

JMO

False,
The ongoing war on drugs shows that the government is entirely ineffective at controlling just about anything. How can we expect them effective ban firearms?

 

[MyBelle]

I agree that it is a common argument in the ongoing gun debate.

When you look at the sheer quantity of guns manufactured in the US, year after year after year, the gun makers are simply pumping out more and more and more guns.
Guns that rarely wither and become unusable, thereby increasing - by the millions - the guns in circulation.

And making HUGE profits $$$$$$$$ at the expense of criminality and people's lives.

Look to the source. Gun profiteers and pathetically weak laws.

View attachment 422152

Firearms manufactured U.S. 2022| Statista

In 2022, around 13.4 million firearms were manufactured in the United States.

www.statista.com

It is so ridiculous, Mexico has tried suing gun manufacturers because Mexican drug cartels are obtaining their guns across the border with the U.S. because they are so easily available. However, a judge threw out the lawsuit because of legislation that protects gun manufacturers from lawsuits. Mexico has appealed:

Mexico launches appeal in suit against U.S. gun makers

Mexico has filed an appeal in a civil lawsuit against U.S.-based gun manufacturers, it said on Wednesday, looking to crack down on the trafficking of weapons to powerful drug cartels.

www.reuters.com

 

[Sabex]

Fentanyl is pouring across our nation's southern border by drug cartels. It has absolutely nothing to do with gun violence, which is the topic of this thread.

JMO

It has everything to do with it. It proves my central point that banning stuff doesn't work, people still do it.

EDIT: typo

 

[MyBelle]

It has everything to do with it. It proves my central point that banning stuff doesn't work, people still do it.

EDIT: typo

Nobody is suggesting banning all guns. gmab.

 

[Sabex]

Nobody is suggesting banning all guns. gmab.

I didn't refer to banning *all* guns either

But there are bans and limitations on bump stocks, high capacity magazines, lightning locks, etc. and tighter controls will probably increase this list.

 

[MyBelle]

False,
The ongoing war on drugs shows that the government is entirely ineffective at controlling just about anything. How can we expect them effective ban firearms?

States that have enacted firearm laws aimed at protecting public safety such as Red Flag laws have been very effective at curbing violence which is why more states are enacting them.

Can ‘red flag’ laws curb gun violence? Here’s what the research says.

There is research showing red flag laws may be effective in preventing suicides, along with a growing body of research on mass shootings.

journalistsresource.org