Jump to content

General "mass killings" thread


Raven
 Share

Recommended Posts

Oh look another school shooting. And one in America, at that. Yet another reason commoners in America shouldn't have guns. What reason would they have to get a gun in the first place? In the Netherlands, regular people can't have guns, and why would we need guns? Our crime rate is much lower than that of America, and I believe this is partly because of this just really dumb thing called gun control. Are the people who commit this act psychotic or terrorists? I don't care! The fact is, they have a gun, which is ridiculously easy to obtain in America. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 465
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

7 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

...that isn't even a clear-cut line... (an incident can be both a mass shooting and a terrorist attack; there is some overlap)

[Officially]: The difference between a terrorist attack and some other form of bombing or shooting or mass killing is that the terrorist acts with the motive of making a political statement, or influencing law or government policy.  Whereas an ordinary killer has no such motive; he just has a depraved state of mind and engages in violent, antisocial behavior because...reasons...

Somewhere along the way that got warped in the popular culture to: "Terrorism, we go to war with. Mass shootings just happen. Unless the shooter is Muslim--then its terrorism."  America is fucked like that.

But in the eyes of the law, that isn't how it works

I understand that however Ana kinda dodged the question by talking mass bombing and stuff. While obviously a bomb is very lethal, my main point is that with all those mass shootings that still happen in America, they could have been way less deadly if guns weren't being sold like candy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Michelaar said:

Oh look another school shooting. And one in America, at that. Yet another reason commoners in America shouldn't have guns. What reason would they have to get a gun in the first place? In the Netherlands, regular people can't have guns, and why would we need guns? Our crime rate is much lower than that of America, and I believe this is partly because of this just really dumb thing called gun control. Are the people who commit this act psychotic or terrorists? I don't care! The fact is, they have a gun, which is ridiculously easy to obtain in America. 

I mean, yeah. I agree with you. Guns are way too easy to get here in the US where I live. We need much stricter laws regarding who can get a gun, how many, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Michelaar said:

Oh look another school shooting. And one in America, at that. Yet another reason commoners in America shouldn't have guns. What reason would they have to get a gun in the first place? In the Netherlands, regular people can't have guns, and why would we need guns? Our crime rate is much lower than that of America, and I believe this is partly because of this just really dumb thing called gun control. Are the people who commit this act psychotic or terrorists? I don't care! The fact is, they have a gun, which is ridiculously easy to obtain in America. 

I mean, yeah. I agree with you. Guns are way too easy to get here in the US where I live. We need much stricter laws regarding who can get a gun, how many, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Nym said:

I understand that however Ana kinda dodged.

Yeah she does that. 

Like I understand people who argue Individual responsibility and freedom is the most important thing here. I'm a responsible gun owner. My rights as a responsible gun owner shouldn't be burdened or diminished because other people are criminals and use guns to commit crimes--that's like taking away my right to drink because some people are alcoholics."

...fine. fair argument. I get it...

I disagree, but w/e, reasonable people can disagree on that count. That's a values calll. Agree to disagree.

I can't understand (and poorly suffer) people who argue If you take guns away then only criminals will have guns. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Gun laws make us less safe.

...okay...

Interesting theory. You're wrong. There's hard data that says you're wrong. I don't want to be rude, but there's no room for reasonable people to disagree here. You're being sillyand we need to work on changing public opinion so that the number of people who agree with you isn't enough to make laws.

Because holy shit...that's a bad argument...

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Nym said:

I understand that however Ana kinda dodged the question by talking mass bombing and stuff. While obviously a bomb is very lethal, my main point is that with all those mass shootings that still happen in America, they could have been way less deadly if guns weren't being sold like candy.

I definitly agree with this. While it may not be the only weapons people get killed with, that doesn't change the fact that people STILL can get guns as easy as they can get good grades in school. Taking away guns would be like taking away another way to kill, which I definitly support. I just don't understand why people think having guns is neccesary when there is clear proof otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, SoulWeaver said:

Ana, you said you're done. Just back out and let it go. And no, I'm not trying to argue with you here - we both know you don't want to argue on this, you came to just state your opinion and leave, nobody worth worrying about will think any worse of you if you walk away when they're trying to fight you.

I'm in Ana's boat as well; all replies to my comments will be ignored. Possible exception being how dumb I regard the answer I receive for my below comment to be.

Yeah, I wasn't going to continue anyway, not even just because I don't want to. I'm not entirely sure HOW to. There are a few things I could say, but it isn't much and I don't know what else I'd add, and I would've preferred to add a bit more.

So yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the probably the most depressing thread title I've seen in a long time.

I heard about what happened today and it just baffles me. I don't live in America but the first big school shooting that got a lot of attention was the columbine shooting and that one happened in 1999...why aren't guns controlled a lot more? Is it the money, some kind of weird sense of freedom or something else? When will this ever stop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Hekselka said:

I heard about what happened today and it just baffles me. I don't live in America but the first big school shooting that got a lot of attention was the columbine shooting and that one happened in 1999...why aren't guns controlled a lot more? Is it the money, some kind of weird sense of freedom or something else? 

...the bolded, I think. 

I hear people argue that its money; that the laws don't change because of all the $$$ the NRA gives to politicians tha take a pro-gun stance and spends on defeating politicians that support gun control.

I don't think that's a correct take on the problem.

Gun ownership and gun use is deeply ingrained in the American identity going all the way back to the days of the settlers and the pioneers. Its romanticized. Its considered to be a core freedom, on the same level as the right to trial-by-jury and free speech. Legal curtailment of gun rights is a public policy associated with dictatorship and fascism. 

..that's the mindset of most Americans and that's how they vote... 

And that's what it comes down to. Voters. Politicians aren't moved by the Gun Lobby because of its money. Politicians are moved by the gun lobby because they get run out of office by the many, many voters who count gun rights amongst their top issues, if the gun lobby labels a politician as "Anti-Gun."

If they didn't have the votes behind them all the money in the world wouldn't be able to block control laws. Again--its like legalizing marijuana. Pharmaceutical companies  and the private prison system and the adult beverage industry have all pumped massive amounts of money into blocking legalization efforts. And it worked--as long as they had the voters to back it up.

But when public opinion started changing it didn't matter how much money they spent. Politicians flipped because first and foremost: politicians don't want to get run out of office by voters. 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Water Mage said:

How many times in your entire life have you felt the need to use a gun? How many times having a gun in your home felt like a safe thing to do?

so let's say that someone is trying to break into your home, he has a gun, you've called the police and they haven't arrived ye, he gets in, would you prefer to have a gun ready to fire to defend yourself. OR would you rather not have a weapon, have him find you and shot you

several, I've been outside at night and have ended up in some pretty sketchy places. Once when I was 16 I'm dead serious I saw someone trying to get into my house from the front, I grabbed my 22 cal rifle called for help and hid. I had no plan to use it unless he got in.

2 hours ago, Water Mage said:

And the idea that people need guns to protect themselves is also ridiculous. Are those people really ready kill what they deem dangerous? What if the kill someone by accident thinking it was a thief?

That's called a grey area, what if it an actual threat, I recall a few yeas ago there was a man trying to break into her home, and when he did he was shot after he broke open the door, she could have been killed at that moment http://abc13.com/news/listen-woman-shoots-burglar-while-on-911-call/296275/

 

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

guns are easier to acquire, easier to use, less likely to immediately set off red flags

So are vehicles

__________

I'm on ana's side

the world's a shitty place, I'd rather live with weapons then not, because I can at least defend myself

Edited by Captain Karnage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

so let's say that someone is trying to break into your home, he has a gun, you've called the police and they haven't arrived ye, he gets in, would you prefer to have a gun ready to fire to defend yourself. OR would you rather not have a weapon, have him find you and shot you

...that's half the analysis...here's the other half you left out...

Lets say America switches to a East Asian or Western European style system of gun laws. Which is greater: the safety benefit accrued from reduction in probability that someone will break into your home with a gun, or the safety detriment accrued from the increase in probability that if someone breaks into your house with a gun, you will be unable to shoot first. 
 

18 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

Yes: and we regulate vehicles!!!

-We require license to operate, and testing + training courses to obtain a license.  

-We require mandatory registration with the Department of Motor Vehicles.

-We require drivers to carry license and registration at all times.

-We suspend licenses and issue penalties and fines for unsafe operation.  

-We make it a criminal offense to operate a motor vehicle during a period of suspension. 

________

We do this all in the name of public health and safety, because vehicles can kill people if improperly operated and are extremely common. Therefore the government has a compelling interest in broad regulation.  

Can we agree that guns should receive at least the same level of regulatory oversight as motor vehicles?  
 

 

 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:



Lets say America switches to a East Asian or Western European style system of gun laws. Which is greater: the safety benefit accrued from reduction in probability that someone will break into your home with a gun, or the safety detriment accrued from the increase in probability that if someone breaks into your house with a gun, you will be unable to shoot first. 
 

Yes: and we regulate vehicles!!!

-We require license to operate, and testing + training courses to obtain a license.  

-We require mandatory registration with the Department of Motor Vehicles.

-We require drivers to carry license and registration at all times.

-We suspend licenses and issue penalties and fines for unsafe operation.  

-We make it a criminal offense to operate a motor vehicle during a period of suspension. 

________

We do this all in the name of public health and safety, because vehicles can kill people if improperly operated and are extremely common. Therefore the government has a compelling interest in broad regulation.  

Can we agree that guns should receive at least the same level of regulatory oversight as motor vehicles?  
 

 

 

Still what's stopping them from having a gun in the first place, people can still illegally obtain them

and by that logic, what's stopping someone from cracking open a window, and hotwireing the damn car, and driving it into a crowed area full of pedestrians

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Captain Karnage said:

Still what's stopping them from having a gun in the first place, people can still illegally obtain them

and by that logic, what's stopping someone from cracking open a window, and hotwireing the damn car, and driving it into a crowed area full of pedestrians

The increased difficulty and effort vs. doing it lawfully? (if the laws are vigorously enforced, it stops all but the most determined and capable of bad actors)

So do you think we should just not have any motor vehicle laws because "whats the point--people can drive without a license?" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just heard about this myself today. I know pretty late, but I don't watch news or use social media so I never hear about anything current.

So my dad asked me if I heard about the thing that happened in Florida and I said no. Then he told me there was a mass shooting in school that killed like 17 people. And my first response was "pfft, another one? Looks like the new fad must be mass shootings and suicides". That's how common things like this have become and it's sad. I think people should be banned to own them like other countries and increase police and military presence everywhere or at least in highly trafficked areas. This country is so crappy at this point and I want to move, but I don't think I can because I just wanna live in NY forever where I was born even though I'm in NJ currently. Thank goodness I work from home because I know whenever I have a kid I'm home schooling. 

Edited by Outer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was about to type up essentially what Shoblongoo said about cars, because that argument made me think of a rather infuriating Fox Newscaster who asked if we were to regulate cars and vehicles the same way we suggest to do for guns. And the answer is a whole-hearted resounding 'yes.' That's what we do as a society, or rather what we should do.

2 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

Still what's stopping them from having a gun in the first place, people can still illegally obtain them

and by that logic, what's stopping someone from cracking open a window, and hotwireing the damn car, and driving it into a crowed area full of pedestrians

One big argument I keep seeing about gun control, at least from my own mother's view, is that 'criminals will still go through the effort to get guns, anyways.' Yes. That's true. I can't deny that criminals with a fully thought out intention to go out and start murdering people will go through the holes and loops in order to procure themselves a weapon. Because then it won't be just anyone. It won't be just any person who has been bullied or abused or is mentally ill that also happens to have access to a gun inside their house, whether it be their own or someone elses, that they can just take and start shooting whenever and wherever they please. And if that doesn't stop it, then I'm sorry to say, but further restrictions would need to be put into place. Background checks not only on the person owning the gun, but of the people they live with, the security that they have within their own house, the measures they can take to ensure that a gun is not placed into the hands of someone that might misuse it, directly or indirectly.

What's stopping someone from breaking a window and hotwiring a car? Car alarms, for one. A blaring siren that goes off on a locked car incase it is going to be stolen. Windows that aren't as easily broken. More technilogically advanced cars that aren't capable of being hotwired by just anyone who looked up the tutorial on google or youtube. That's the big issue. The argument is based on the idea that every single person who commits these sorts of crimes has every single bit of know-how, money, resources and time to perform these. And that is not the case. There are far more people than the most experienced, far more than the ones who debate about it in their minds for months on end and come to the conclusion that they should do this. There are more than that, and that is why I believe there should be restrictions on guns just as there are restrictions on cars. Not everyone is Liam Neeson, not everyone is this experienced person who has taken the disturbing amount of time to get everything set up perfectly. There are plenty of people who have snapped on a whim and have done this, resulting in loss of life that could have been prevented had restrictions be in place. And rather than speak of the most elite set of killers, the most dedicated set of murderers as if they were common, let us instead step back and take a look at all those who do the same but are less than that. Just random people who had one incredible, undeniable bad day that set them off down the path of murder thanks to the ease that they were able to obtain a weapon capable of murdering people, made for that express purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dandragon said:

'criminals will still get guns.'

 

The argument is based on the idea that every single person who commits these sorts of crimes has every single bit of know-how, money, resources and time to perform these. And that is not the case. 

^
Bingo.

Dirty Little Secret: Most Criminals are Poor and Stupid 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dandragon said:

I was about to type up essentially what Shoblongoo said about cars, because that argument made me think of a rather infuriating Fox Newscaster who asked if we were to regulate cars and vehicles the same way we suggest to do for guns. And the answer is a whole-hearted resounding 'yes.' That's what we do as a society, or rather what we should do.

One big argument I keep seeing about gun control, at least from my own mother's view, is that 'criminals will still go through the effort to get guns, anyways.' Yes. That's true. I can't deny that criminals with a fully thought out intention to go out and start murdering people will go through the holes and loops in order to procure themselves a weapon. Because then it won't be just anyone. It won't be just any person who has been bullied or abused or is mentally ill that also happens to have access to a gun inside their house, whether it be their own or someone elses, that they can just take and start shooting whenever and wherever they please. And if that doesn't stop it, then I'm sorry to say, but further restrictions would need to be put into place. Background checks not only on the person owning the gun, but of the people they live with, the security that they have within their own house, the measures they can take to ensure that a gun is not placed into the hands of someone that might misuse it, directly or indirectly.

What's stopping someone from breaking a window and hotwiring a car? Car alarms, for one. A blaring siren that goes off on a locked car incase it is going to be stolen. Windows that aren't as easily broken. More technilogically advanced cars that aren't capable of being hotwired by just anyone who looked up the tutorial on google or youtube. That's the big issue. The argument is based on the idea that every single person who commits these sorts of crimes has every single bit of know-how, money, resources and time to perform these. And that is not the case. There are far more people than the most experienced, far more than the ones who debate about it in their minds for months on end and come to the conclusion that they should do this. There are more than that, and that is why I believe there should be restrictions on guns just as there are restrictions on cars. Not everyone is Liam Neeson, not everyone is this experienced person who has taken the disturbing amount of time to get everything set up perfectly. There are plenty of people who have snapped on a whim and have done this, resulting in loss of life that could have been prevented had restrictions be in place. And rather than speak of the most elite set of killers, the most dedicated set of murderers as if they were common, let us instead step back and take a look at all those who do the same but are less than that. Just random people who had one incredible, undeniable bad day that set them off down the path of murder thanks to the ease that they were able to obtain a weapon capable of murdering people, made for that express purpose.

Strong drug prescriptions also play a key factor, but i don't see a strong prescription control...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Erren said:

Strong drug prescriptions also play a key factor, but i don't see a strong prescription control...

Then that is something we also have to regulate and control.

EDIT: Hold on, wait what?

Strong drug 'precriptions?' Are you implying doctors are to blame for people who are going crazy? Or are you trying to save abuse in prescription drugs is also an issue. Because I'm not entirely sure.

Edited by Dandragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone has any serious skeptical attitudes towards how lack of gun control leads to more gun violence should look at Australia. Objectively treating the historic events in Australia is a good case study to consider as a serious argument to how gun control can be a positive change towards eliminating large scale gun violence incidents

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/australia-gun-control/541710/

 

Quote

The number of mass shootings in Australia—defined as incidents in which a gunman killed five or more people other than himself, which is notably a higher casualty count than is generally applied for tallying mass shootings in the U.S.—dropped from 13 in the 18-year period before 1996 to zero after the Port Arthur massacre. Between 1995 and 2006, gun-related homicides and suicides in the country dropped by 59 percent and 65 percent, respectively, though these declines appear to have since leveled off. Two academics who have studied the impact of the reform initiative estimate that the gun-buyback program saves at least 200 lives each year, according to The New York Times.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing I find extremely irritating and yet simultaneously fascinating is tendencies of opposition to gun control to argue that since we can't completely eliminate gun violence that it isn't worth it to try. That just because someone is able to illegally obtain guns it makes no difference if we try to make it illegal to own some guns and make strict laws to prevent people from obtaining weapons that they should not be able to possess due to whatever reason. This is an extremely cynical viewpoint in my opinion. 

 

It is absolutely worth it to make incremental changes. Even if there are only a handful of fewer deaths per year it is worth it. Or are those people willing to argue that a few lives are not worth giving up military grade weapons for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Shoblongoo You mentioned that people who are capable of serving in the military reserve or a police force should own guns? I have asthma, meaning I can't do that. Does that bar me from owning a gun,  in your mind? I don't think that's what you meant, but one could draw such a conclusion. 

Also, people forget that gun control affects necessary things, like hunting seasons. If guns are banned in totality, the hoops one needs to go through to get weapons needed to cull out of control animal populations makes hunting unprofitable. Granted, PETA would be all over that specifically for that reason. Also, let me bring up another cultural factor. Older countries held back on using guns because they lack chivalry, and banning them was easy. America was formed based on the idea of an armed populace. We toppled many regimes that did terrible things against unarmed civilians. For us to control arms smacks of hypocrisy, plain and simple. Especially when trust in the government is as low as it is. 

Gun control, sensible as it is, isn't to a people who pride themselves on rising against a "tyrannical" and all encompassing empire to form a nation freer than any other.

1 minute ago, sorenwind said:

The other thing I find extremely irritating and yet simultaneously fascinating is tendencies of opposition to gun control to argue that since we can't completely eliminate gun violence that it isn't worth it to try. That just because someone is able to illegally obtain guns it makes no difference if we try to make it illegal to own some guns and make strict laws to prevent people from obtaining weapons that they should not be able to possess due to whatever reason. This is an extremely cynical viewpoint in my opinion. 

 

It is absolutely worth it to make incremental changes. Even if there are only a handful of fewer deaths per year it is worth it. Or are those people willing to argue that a few lives are not worth giving up military grade weapons for.

A problem I see is that a gun ban would have a similar outcome to the War on Drugs, that people who are unwilling to give up their guns would be imprisoned en masse, and that penalties for owning firearms would be strict and uncompromising. Not to mention it would cause basically a mass revolt, mainly in the South, which fought a war 150 years ago on something that was objectively wrong. The South will never be convinced to lay down its arms, because they will make people remember the time they were almost their own country, and that they would do it again if they thought the government was being oppressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

A problem I see is that a gun ban would have a similar outcome to the War on Drugs, that people who are unwilling to give up their guns would be imprisoned en masse, and that penalties for owning firearms would be strict and uncompromising. Not to mention it would cause basically a mass revolt, mainly in the South, which fought a war 150 years ago on something that was objectively wrong. The South will never be convinced to lay down its arms, because they will make people remember the time they were almost their own country, and that they would do it again if they thought the government was being oppressive.

I'm not suggesting that all guns be banned. There is clearly a historic significance to owning guns in America. What I am arguing is why it is so easy for people to acquire military grade weapons. For which animal do you need an AR-15 to hunt. Seriously? And why is it so easy for just anyone to acquire weapons. There should be background checks and mandatory classes and licenses to own guns. At the very least prevent mentally troubled people from obtaining them. Just simple regulations that can save tons of lives while still allowing the responsible people to keep their guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

Still what's stopping them from having a gun in the first place, people can still illegally obtain them

and by that logic, what's stopping someone from cracking open a window, and hotwireing the damn car, and driving it into a crowed area full of pedestrians

I didn't want to post in this thread again, but I decided to browse a bit and I saw this person that totally agrees with my view, and I had come in to help him. And I know this from experience, sort of, because my stepdad's truck was stolen once and the thief used it to steal all sorts of other things, including other vehicles. I'm certain the truck was originally locked and the keys inside the house. My mom's car was also broken into once, though I'm not sure if she had it locked. I would assume she did though, since that's the smart thing. Those criminals could've just as easily taken these vehicles and run lots of people over with them.

Guns can still be obtained illegally no matter how many gun laws you put out there. It's like I said before, control the criminals more, not the weapons. I also learned about this story once about Australia. Apparently one time, they outlawed guns entirely. But then knife/other weapon violence skyrocketed and lots of people still got hurt/killed. See how gun laws do little to nothing?

Also, those people talking about how crime is low in other countries: Crimes are lowest in countries like North Korea, China, Russia, etc. What do they all have in common now? Communism/dictators/etc. Which means no freedom, everything is controlled by the government. North Korea doesn't even allow their citizens to have internet or anything. Would you guys want this for us, in a country that believes in freedom?

We need a different solution, not this.

Edited by Anacybele
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...