General "mass killings" thread

[Dandragon]

3 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

@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.

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.

Under what logic does this effect hunting seasons? A hunting rifle is far different from an assault rifle or a machine gun or a hand gun. Gun control does not mean an outright ban on every single gun, but for what reason do you need to own an assault rifle? The idea of gun control is not to ban, but to regulate. Regulation of the types of fire arms that can be purchased by everyday American citizens. That is what is being proposed. The second amendment was made during the time of muskets. Muskets are a type of gun that takes far more time to load and use compared to that of an assault rifle, which is what is being used to kill in school shootings and mass shootings.

We are not saying no one deserves a gun, despite my own personal opinions on the matter. What people who want to promote gun control are saying is that we regulate. We make it harder, so that a person of sound mind and body, a responsible adult, someone who is well aware of the dangers of owning a gun, can be identified, rather than stores selling guns to some random teenagers who want to recreate the Columbine for their own selfish and disturbed desires.

[Excellen Browning]

vvvvvv 

 

[Strullemia]

49 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

...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. 

I see. It seems that a lot has to change before some people will think off changing these rules.

Really, you'd think that after how many gun problems have occurred in America the majority of voters would start to feel different about this problem. Well, I hope that it will change because something has to change about this. The one good thing about Trump is that he's such a bad president that the chances of a republican winning next time will be low and if a democrat wins this is something they certainly have to address.

[Tryhard]

Yeah, like in that video from Jim Jefferies, I actually respect people who admit that people are going to die because of it, but they don't give it thought because they want to have their guns as a hobby, or such. It's an admission, but at the same time it's far more legitimate than any of this self-defense or other arguments which are illegitimate and don't hold water.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Tryhard

[Erren]

34 minutes ago, Dandragon said:

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.

Prescription abuse is the problem.

[Dandragon]

3 minutes ago, Erren said:

Prescription abuse is the problem.

Yes. And we need to regulate that as well.

[Darros]

I see a lot of """points""" in this thread about "well what if this?" and "well what if that?" and I'd just like to say don't forget that there are several first-world countries which don't have remotely comparable statistics that show that control works. A lot of these hypotheticals y'all are coming up (ie. banning hunting rifles, which btw are not comparable at all) with can be addressed by looking at other countries such as Canada, Australia, or many countries in Europe.

I was talking about this online with some friends earlier and what really seems to be the issue going forward in figuring out how to address this situation is that there are already all these guns out there, tons of 'em. That would be the point to focus on because that's really what sets the situation apart from "oh just emulate another country". But compare and contrast here. The lack of regulation and the frequency of these killings are directly correlated. Knowing that, it has to be time to move forward.

[euklyd]

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

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. 

Note that it was not always the case. The absolute obsession with an unrestricted "right to bear arms" is a modern invention. Especially with regard to attitudes about the Second Amendment.

Former SCOTUS Chief Justice Warren Burger said as recently as 1991 that the modern view of the Second Amendment is a total fabrication:

Quote

The Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud,' on the American public," former chief justice Warren E. Burger said in a 1991 interview on PBS's "MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour." Burger has said often that the "right to bear arms" belongs to the states, and he has attacked the NRA for fostering the opposite view.

If any of y'all are interested, The Atlantic has an article chronicling the fascinating history of guns in America and the evolution of attitudes surrounding them (e.g., did you know the originators of the modern interpretation of the Second Amendment were the Black Panthers, and the NRA helped write some of the earliest and strongest gun control legislation?).

This post took me like 20 minutes to write because I'm missing the 't' key on my keyboard, so I'll leave it with this for now.

[sorenwind]

40 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

 

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

That's not true. The countries with the lowest crime rates are mostly all European countries (ie Iceland, Switzerland, Luxembourg etc)

40 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

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?

This is an incredibly cynical statement which I will refute with facts. Australia banned certain semi-automatic, self-loading rifles and shotguns, and imposed stricter licensing and registration requirements in 1996 and further tightened gun laws, restricting the caliber, barrel length and capacity for sport shooting handguns in 2002. 

Since 1996, the number of homicides in Australia dropped from 354/year to 282/year. This decrease was despite the fact that Australia's population has actually grown in that time culminating in a drop from 1.3 per 100,000 people to 1 per 100,000. Now it could be argued that other factors could have affected this drop. This is a fair assessment. However this is just homicides we're talking about. Looking at mass shootings in Australia, they haven't had a mass shooting since 1996. This is in spite of the fact that the definition of a mass shooting is much more severe in Australia than in the US (Ie fewer deaths to qualify as a mass shooting).

Australia hasn't banned all guns. They've just banned civilians from owning military grade weapons and have added licensing and registration requirements. Almost 500 people died due to mass shootings in the US in 2015 alone. Australia's story shows that these deaths are all preventable by just making simple common sense amendments. You can still use your hunting rifle to hunt and own a handgun to protect yourself and your home even with these regulations. So I still don't see the argument here.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/02/15/australia-hasnt-had-fatal-mass-shooting-since-1996-heres-what-did/340345002/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604

[Johann]

4 things that most people (even across party lines) are in favor of and would make a big difference:

• Expanded background checks for gun buyers
• Laws preventing the mentally ill from buying guns
• Creation of a federal database to track all gun sales.
• Ban on assault-style weapons

And what do you know, you can still keep a much simpler hunting or self-defense weapon with these proposals. Bonus John Oliver video because why not:

 

[Shoblongoo]

I'm very curious where you got your information on Australia, Ana. Because you were purposefully misinformed by whoever told you that. Additionally: 

1 hour ago, Anacybele said:

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.

...not only is this wrong, Russia is the ONLY first world country which has higher rates of violent crime then the United States (to the extent you can even call Russia a first world country. Its basically just a third world country with a first world military + geopolitical presence in world events)

  

^
That's with all weapons. Not just guns.  (i.e. You can't use the "...shootings might go down, but killers will still use other weapons!" dodge). This is inclusive of knives, bombs, vehicular manslaughter, pushing an elderly woman down a flight of stairs--every conceivable way for one human being to unlawfully kill another human being.

Note Australia's placement, as this data is post-implementation of gun control. (you seem to be under the impression that other weapons brought Australia up to levels of violence comparable to countries without strong gun control, after Australia changed its laws)

Please note Russia's placement.  

And finally, please note the placement of liberal democracies with strong gun laws.

Again--the numbers are not on your side here.

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, Hylian Air Force said:

@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. 

No; that's not what I meant.

I mean only that under a liberal reading of the 2nd Amendment the government has authority to regulate the sale, ownership, and operation of firearms. Derived from the regulatory powers inherent in running a "well regulated militia." 

And that reasonable exercise of these powers need not necessarily constitute an "infringement," within the broader meaning of the amendment. 

As opposed to a strict conservative reading of the amendment. Which holds that the right to keep and bare arms is without limit, and that any form of gun control is an unconstitutional infringement of the right. 

Edited February 15, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Anacybele]

11 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

I'm very curious where you got your information on Australia, Ana. Because you were purposefully misinformed by whoever told you that. Additionally: 

I don't remember, honestly. I wish I could, so I could source it...

11 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

...not only is this wrong, Russia is the ONLY first world country which has higher rates of violent crime then the United States (to the extent you can even call Russia a first world country. Its basically just a third world country with a first world military + geopolitical presence in world events)

  

^
That's with all weapons. Not just guns.  (i.e. You can't use the "...shootings might go down, but killers will still use other weapons!" dodge). This is inclusive of knives, bombs, vehicular manslaughter, pushing an elderly woman down a flight of stairs--every conceivable way for one human being to unlawfully kill another human being.

Note Australia's placement, as this data is post-implementation of gun control. (you seem to be under the impression that other weapons brought Australia up to levels of violence comparable to countries without strong gun control, after Australia changed its laws)

Please note Russia's placement.  

And finally, please note the placement of liberal democracies with strong gun laws.

Again--the numbers are not on your side here.

 

My mistake on Russia then. I thought it was communist and/or run by a dictator.

And you can say "the numbers are not on my side" about other things I've said, but I still don't agree with you. And I just realized, no one acknowledged that I pointed out Chicago as proof. They still have some of the strictest gun laws, but one of the highest gun crime rates in this country. And this I can source you, if you want.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Anacybele

[Crux404]

Maybe this is not the exact place to reach this conclusion (mainly due to the small poll count), but there seems to be an agreement over the ban on assult-style weapons. They, as listed, as ill-siuted for personal protection,  they are not needed for hobbies such as hunting, and even on a lobbyist perspective, I do not think there are a lot of civilians among the buyers. Also, I would like to question if citizens really need to carry weapons outside their homes in daylight.

But there is a point Ana mentioned I would like to bold: while gun control would; it would certainly not end the homicides (though, to not be cynic, a reduction in the number of victms); and, at list in third world countries, they would not deprive gangs and such from heavy weapons. I think the problem is not limited to acess, but, as she mentioned, there IS an health issue underlined in this problem that could be adressed.

 

@Shoblongoo, your graphic is also interesting because some countries, like Brazil,  have thighter gun laws; but a lack of proper control could render the discussion pointless.

(out of curiosity, Brasil is considered by some a developed country?, I'm Brazillian and this is newflash.)

Edited February 15, 2018 by Crux404

[Raven]

1 hour ago, Anacybele said:

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?

It sounds like you're saying tighter gun laws will mean the abolishment of internet, or other such things that people undeniably have a basic right to. There's no correlation between the points you are trying to make. You know a country is able to have a much lower homicide rate and not be a dictatorship or communist country? Just visit this page here and sort the list by "homicide": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_death_rate

Edited February 15, 2018 by Raven

[Moblin Major General]

@Shoblongoo I'm wondering how Mexico is in the third world? The title of the graph leads me to believe you were trying to be misleading on some accounts.

[Anacybele]

Just now, Raven said:

It sounds like you're saying tighter gun laws will mean the abolishment of internet, or other such things that people undeniably have a basic right to. There's no correlation between the points you are trying to make. You know a country is able to have a much lower homicide rate and not be a dictatorship or communist country? Just visit this page here and sort the list by "homicide":

I never said anything about internet, what are you talking about?

Second, what page? You didn't provide a link or anything.

[Raven]

1 minute ago, Anacybele said:

I never said anything about internet, what are you talking about?

Second, what page? You didn't provide a link or anything.

I edited my post to include the link - it didn't show up at first for some reason, but it's fixed now.

You mentioned the internet, saying N.Koreans aren't allowed internet.

[NPR]

Disclaimer: You can call this post out as me creating a straw man to burn down if you want, but if you do please elaborate on what I have wrong so I can respond to you specifically.

Republican Arguments Against Gun Control Followed By Responses:

1. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.  This never made much sense to me, of course we are never going to stop all people from committing murder or acts of violence. Other countries without guns often have mass knife attacks, the difference is that there are considerably less casualties in those situations. Also, to borrow from another Republican talking point, how can a party believe increasing the 'access' to healthcare will drastically lower illness and death, but simultaneously believe that lowering the access to weapons of death will not decrease the number of people killed by such weapons. It is literally the natural inverse of the argument.
2. A 'Good Guy' with a gun would have stopped the situation. This is a ridiculous male power fantasy that anyone who has ever had real life gun training can see to be false. Speaking of male power phantasy, let us detour for a moment to focus on how guns are marketed in the United States. Certain shifts starting happening around World War Two that placed a greater emphasis on the military purpose of a gun, with this change came the slow trickle of toxic masculinity that is often associated with the American perception of the military and their propaganda ads. One could say that this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if it wasn't for what our military friend said earlier about people having no training, yet still being conditioned to intervene. Unfortunately, let me direct your attention to some American groups who really REALLY REALLY shouldn't be getting conditioned on how their masculinity would be enhanced by a gun. The most relevant right now are literally every white supremacist group in the US. These freaks are the kind of people who think every black person is a criminal and that there is some sort of genetic science to back it up. I don't think I need to link to how wrong that is, but I should also note that it is these same kind of people, especially the KKK who campaigned on' making communities safer' at their founding. (Read: Kill and terrorize people of color out of the community.) Why do I bring this up? Simple, many of these same gun ads are targeting a very specific white fear of robbery, home invasion, murder, or rape. (which became popularized by this old hollywood kkk propoganda video by the way.) 
3. Mass shooters only focus on soft targets and armed personnel would dissuade shooters. This one is a little harder to explain without lots of data and research, but essentially, zones without guns face the threat of a mass shooting at a fairly preportional rate to those that do allow guns or have security.
4. Bad guys don't follow laws when acquiring guns. Let's turn to an interesting point in history where suicides by use of gas ovens were very high for a look at how mentally ill people seem to go forward with their actions. Essentially, if you don't have the means to kill yourself, you are less likely to do this. Yes, this is part of the gun regulation discussion. Suicide by gun is an incredibly common form of suicide in the United States because it is seen as an easy way out. By reducing the number and availability of guns, people with mental illnesses would be less likely to kill themselves, and presumably others as well. How does this connect to the argument about bad guys not following laws to acquire guns? It does so in a couple of ways. First of all, the type of bad guys that plan these sorts of things have mental illnesses, so by putting regulations into place that would stop such people from owning fire arms it reduces the likelihood of an attack. "But NPR, that is a law, what about the illegal ways to get a gun?" Well random voice from nowhere, many of the illegal ways, or loopholes in gun buying can be significantly reduced by enacting more laws. For instance, we have all heard of the 'gun show loophole' at this point, right? Eliminating the gun show loophole prevents on easy avenue of acquiring a gun that has dubious legality. By requiring private sellers to do a background check on an individual buying a gun, hell, by requiring that same purchaser to get a mental health evaluation on top of it, it would be far less likely these guns got into the wrong hands. Can we stop some street dealers from selling guns? Probably not all of them, but again, by having less guns, especially guns semi-automatic weapons with large rounds, it is LESS LIKELY that a mass shooting will occur in general. Some might argue that countries like the UK had their homicide rates temporarily rise, or that Australia didn't just regulate guns, they almost took them away entirely. These are semi-valid arguments. What it fails to recognize is the minimal number of MASS SHOOTINGS that have basically just stopped due to these policies, and I believe that is what the majority of people in this thread care about the most at the moment. Link for stats. So I guess what I am trying to say is, mass shooters typically have mental issues and even though they plan things out meticulously, if it is too hard (read: illegal) to acquire their means, they don't kill as many people. 
5. Not an argument really, more of my own annoyance with this situation. Let me just throw in here that we purportedly had an FBI tip on this guy and nobody did anything about it. We need more strict tracking and actions taken against individuals who get flagged for this sort of thing. If we focused on these people like the terrorists they are this would happen way less often. We have had an increasing number of foiled terrorist attacks, but these mass shooters, who are also terrorists, just aren't treated with the same passion. Idk, maybe it is because 'real terrorists' are usually brown and mass shooters are usually white. Just saying.

Ok, so some of you may have noticed that it is getting harder for me to type coherently... I have more to say, but I just don't have the energy to write more at the moment. I am VERY sick today. Also, sorry, I know I said I would try to respond to people in this thread, but all this linking and research has made me very tired. I am a bit ill today. Might come back and post more later.

TL;DR - We can actual do something about this, even if it is a little bit, but Rebuplicans like to keep their base ultra masculine, vaguely prejudice, and scornful of any other country that dares try something that America isn't doing. It takes a LOT of training to properly use a gun in an active shooter scenario. The gun industry is creepy and deeply tied to old prejudices and people commit suicide less when they don't have access to stuff that easily kills themselves. The FBI could focus on this better.

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by NPR
Clarity? Also, had a link placeholder that wasn't full opps

[Shoblongoo]

32 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

@Shoblongoo I'm wondering how Mexico is in the third world? The title of the graph leads me to believe you were trying to be misleading on some accounts.

Mexico is generally considered a "developed country" on the index used to make such determinations, due to having developed and relatively stable institutions with significantly higher output and productivity then some of the poorer and more politically unstable latin american countries (i.e. Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua...)
But weakness of institutions, widespread government and police corruption, high levels of crime and poverty, and low standard-of-living for average Mexican citizens means that it isn't a "first world country." 
___________

Its a bit confusing; this is as simple as I can phrase it.

When political scientists talk about "First World Countries" and "Third World Countries," they are talking specifically about the most developed and least developed nations.

First world countries are liberal democracies and economic superpowers with highly stable and highly stable political systems, highly productive economies, and shock-resistant institutions of law and public policy.)

"Third World Countries" are countries with low standards of living, unproductive economies, and unstable political systems characterized by frequent civil wars, seizures of power by dictators, and/or lack of any functioning central government.

When political scientists start throwing out terms like "developed" or "developing." They're being inclusive of borderline countries that are somewhere in the middle. 

i.e. they've advanced beyond "third world" status. But they've still got  a ways to go.

China is probably the most powerful country in the world today, and its technically still a "developing nation." (because it fails the average-standard-of-living and "liberal democracy" tests) 

Edited February 15, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Anacybele]

58 minutes ago, Raven said:

I edited my post to include the link - it didn't show up at first for some reason, but it's fixed now.

You mentioned the internet, saying N.Koreans aren't allowed internet.

Okay.  Yes, I know it's possible to have a lower crime rate and not be communist or anything. But I kind of feel like some people here are demanding similar extremities.

Oh, that. I didn't mean we needed to be that extreme. Sorry about that.

56 minutes ago, NPR said:

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. This never made much sense to me

...How does a person picking up a weapon and killing someone not make sense? A gun doesn't just fire itself (well, unless someone was super careless with it, but that's beside the point). And as for the rest of what you said here, even if you take away the guns those groups could have, they'd just find ways to make explosives or something. You have to go after those groups and lock them up, not just take away their weapons. Yes, some weapons aren't as lethal as guns. But you know what? Lock up the potential killers and there would be nobody getting hurt!

56 minutes ago, NPR said:

Bad guys don't follow laws when acquiring guns.

But they don't? Because they're criminals. They don't care about the law.

56 minutes ago, NPR said:

Suicide by gun is an incredibly common form of suicide in the United States because it is seen as an easy way out. By reducing the number and availability of guns, people with mental illnesses would be less likely to kill themselves, and presumably others as well.

This I have to hit you very hard for. I'm sorry, but you are very, VERY wrong here. My younger brother is dead because he put a gun to his head two and a half years ago. The gun was owned by my stepdad, and legally. He followed the laws. Both he and my brother were trained to use it in case they had to defend themselves. No extra gun laws would have kept my brother alive. He's dead because he was mentally abused by a girlfriend, not because he had access to a gun. If there was no gun, he would've just grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed himself or dumped some pills down his throat. There are other ways to commit suicide besides guns, just like there are other ways to kill people/commit crimes besides guns. And you could say "why didn't your brother get help" but he showed no signs he was depressed or anything! None of us saw it before it was too late.

So I would appreciate it if you didn't say my brother would be alive if there were more gun laws.

56 minutes ago, NPR said:

Not an argument really, more of my own annoyance with this situation. Let me just throw in here that we purportedly had an FBI tip on this guy and nobody did anything about it. We need more strict tracking and actions taken against individuals who get flagged for this sort of thing.

This I agree with though. It's disgusting to not do anything about something like that.

@Johann Those are fine, but I thought we already had those laws in place. If not, then they should be, I will admit that. But I don't think we need anymore than that.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Anacybele

[Johann]

1 minute ago, Anacybele said:

Okay.  Yes, I know it's possible to have a lower crime rate and not be communist or anything. But I kind of feel like some people here are demanding similar extremities.

How do you feel about the 4 proposed changes I posted above? They are the changes proposed by most liberals, including lawmakers.

4 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

...How does a person picking up a weapon and killing someone not make sense?

But they do? Because they're criminals. They don't care about the law.

This I have to hit you very hard for. I'm sorry, but you are very, VERY wrong here.

Hope you don't mind me picking out these thoughts here, but the idea @NPR is trying to convey is that guns, as a weapon, are extremely simple to use, even if accidentally, and the amount of damage they can inflict in a single use is crazy when compared other simple weapons like knives. By creating and enforcing stricter gun laws, while some criminals may choose to keep breaking the law, the amount of effort required to commit crimes becomes significantly higher, to the point where they may reconsider or do something less drastic.

Sorry to hear about your brother's story. I certainly can't speak for his case, but there is an argument for many suicides being preventable or unsuccessful if the person has fewer lethal methods at their disposal.

[Zkirsche]

Quote

But they don't? Because they're criminals. They don't care about the law.

By decriminalising more guns/increasing gun control you make it harder to people to access this equipment. If people can't buy the effective, high-quality equiment from stores then they will have to turn to a black market which may be more expensive or have shoddier equipment. This will still reduce the potential for attacks. This may not erase the problem but it will certainly be a start.

[NPR]

25 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

...How does a person picking up a weapon and killing someone not make sense? A gun doesn't just fire itself (well, unless someone was super careless with it, but that's beside the point). And as for the rest of what you said here, even if you take away the guns those groups could have, they'd just find ways to make explosives or something. You have to go after those groups and lock them up, not just take away their weapons. Yes, some weapons aren't as lethal as guns. But you know what? Lock up the potential killers and there would be nobody getting hurt!

But they do? Because they're criminals. They don't care about the law.

This I have to hit you very hard for. I'm sorry, but you are very, VERY wrong here. My younger brother is dead because he put a gun to his head two and a half years ago. The gun was owned by my stepdad, and legally. Both he and my brother were trained to use it in case they had to defend themselves. No extra gun laws would have kept my brother alive. He's dead because he was mentally abused by a girlfriend, not because he had access to a gun. If there was no gun, he would've just grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed himself or dumped some pills down his throat. There are other ways to commit suicide besides guns, just like there are other ways to kill people/commit crimes besides guns. And you could say "why didn't your brother get help" but he showed no signs he was depressed or anything! None of us saw it before it was too late.

So I would appreciate it if you didn't say my brother would be alive if there were more gun laws.

This I agree with though. It's disgusting to not do anything about something like that.

Forgive me for being blunt here, but starting a discussion by quoting someone out of context simply isn't productive. What I said was that people would simply use knifes instead to kill people. Of course people kill people, it is obvious. My problem is that is an intentionally distracting non-starter that contributes nothing to the conversation. While you are correct that they could try to make explosives, you should also be aware that the FBI tracks that far more vigilantly because it is typically an explicit link to terrorism. We prevent those often. Finally, your argument about locking up 'potential' killers is contrary to the very constitution that the 2nd amendment comes from. We have something called due process in America. As Captain America once famously said, "I thought the punishment was supposed to come after the crime." 

Next, let me ask you something? When does someone become a criminal, especially a mass shooter? Often times it is literally during the act, until then many are at the very least perceived to be law abiding citizens. Yes, they surely had underlying issues and a few may have had records, but they had never killed before. Finally, as I have been saying, if we have the proper security checks in place we can prevent many of these people from getting the guns in the first place, just like with most terrorists who try to make explosives. Sure, we can't stop all people from breaking the law, but that isn't the point. We can stop MANY people from breaking the law. Just because it isn't everyone doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it.

Now, I am truly sorry about your brother. It is a tragedy whenever someone commits suicide, in fact it is far more common than you may think. My own girlfriend narrowly took her life a few years back because she knew how to access the handgun in her father's safe. Luckily, he had just recently changed where he stored the ammunition and by some act of god she couldn't pull the trigger. Needless to say, she no longer knows how to open the safe. As I said before, less access means that someone is less likely to kill themselves. A girlfriend I had before that attempted to overdose via pills, or cut herself with razors. When those were taken out of the situation, she was no longer attempting harm that could lead to her death.

Again, I am truly sorry for your loss, but I don't agree with you at all. When it comes to laws that would have stopped your brother from killing themselves, one way they could have caught any depression is if he was required to have a mental health evaluation before being allowed to train on a fire arm. While I don't know the details of the situation, other similar situations could be prevented by having only the owner know how to access the gun, as it is the owner's property and when they bought it they probably went through a background check meant for themselves and not others.

Edited February 15, 2018 by NPR
paragraph three hard changed to harm*

[Anacybele]

4 minutes ago, NPR said:

Forgive me for being blunt here, but starting a discussion by quoting someone out of context simply isn't productive. What I said was that people would simply use knifes instead to kill people. Of course people kill people, it is obvious. My problem is that is an intentionally distracting non-starter that contributes nothing to the conversation. While you are correct that they could try to make explosives, you should also be aware that the FBI tracks that far more vigilantly because it is typically an explicit link to terrorism. We prevent those often. Finally, your argument about locking up 'potential' killers is contrary to the very constitution that the 2nd amendment comes from. We have something called due process in America. As Captain America once famously said, "I thought the punishment was supposed to come after the crime." 

What do you mean I quoted you out of context? Do you mean I should've quoted your entire post instead of just parts of it? If so, I didn't need to do that to convey my point. It didn't mean I was ignoring some things you said.

Anyway, let me point you to an episode of Law & Order. Yes, this show is fake, not real life. But some things in it would make sense in real life too. In this particular episode, the detectives discovered evidence that someone was planning to shoot up a school and kill literally hundreds. Very strong evidence, including threats, the would-be attacker's blog, photos of weapons this guy posted, and more. The guy tried to carry out this attack, but he was apprehended before anyone could get seriously hurt. By Captain America's logic there, the cops should've waited until after people died to arrest and lock the guy up. How does that make sense? The detectives even pointed this out to people who wouldn't believe their warnings. "Would you rather wait until after this guy kills a lot of people?"

7 minutes ago, NPR said:

Next, let me ask you something? When does someone become a criminal, especially a mass shooter? Often times it is literally during the act, until then many are at the very least perceived to be law abiding citizens. Yes, they surely had underlying issues and a few may have had records, but they had never killed before. Finally, as I have been saying, if we have the proper security checks in place we can prevent many of these people from getting the guns in the first place, just like with most terrorists who try to make explosives. Sure, we can't stop all people from breaking the law, but that isn't the point. We can stop MANY people from breaking the law. Just because it isn't everyone doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it.

As I said above, to me, a person becomes a criminal when they plan to commit a crime. Not after or during said crime. You can't always find out when someone is planning a crime, but there are times where you can find evidence.

10 minutes ago, NPR said:

Now, I am truly sorry about your brother. It is a tragedy whenever someone commits suicide, in fact it is far more common than you may think. My own girlfriend narrowly took her life a few years back because she knew how to access the handgun in her father's safe. Luckily, he had just recently changed where he stored the ammunition and by some act of god she couldn't pull the trigger. Needless to say, she no longer knows how to open the safe. As I said before, less access means that someone is less likely to kill themselves. A girlfriend I had before that attempted to overdose via pills, or cut herself with razors. When those were taken out of the situation, she was no longer attempting hard that could lead to her death.

Again, I am truly sorry for your loss, but I don't agree with you at all. When it comes to laws that would have stopped your brother from killing themselves, one way they could have caught any depression is if he was required to have a mental health evaluation before being allowed to train on a fire arm. While I don't know the details of the situation, other similar situations could be prevented by having only the owner know how to access the gun, as it is the owner's property and when they bought it they probably went through a background check meant for themselves and not others.

Yeah, but my brother didn't have any mental issues at the time that he was trained, so nobody would've found them in him if they had to check him. And I was asleep while nobody else was in the house besides him, so no one would've found him in time to prevent him from using a kitchen knife or pills. So I can't agree with you. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.