Worgen said:
I feel like your pretty young since you seem to be making a lot of arguments that don't really seem to understand the nature of people.
Hitting my mid 20s now, and I'd like to think I try to understand the nature of humanity. "Try" being the key word.
I'm feeling too lazy to address all your stuff but here are a couple points. Neither of these shootings were in "soft target" areas. Tx has concealed carry and open carry so anyone in the store could and probably did have a firearm, hell, they sell guns at wallmart here. (or at least they used too, haven't been in one in awhile.)
That I am aware of, there was at least one person interviewed who did have a firearm, and was covering his family I believe, and a few other people as they were making an exit. Everyone armed was likely making careful exits with groups of people, covering against the shooter if he came their way. All of that is speculation however.
And in Ohio the only reason it wasn't more of a blood bath was that the cops got there in like a minute and took the guy out, but he still managed to kill 9 people in a very short amount of time. Imagine if it was a bit harder for them to have acquire force multipliers such as those?
Would any proposed gun laws have actually stopped them from acquiring any such force multiplier? Even with that in mind, it was in fact good guys with guns that stopped a nutcase with one. Imagine if several people there were carrying. Well, the guy was supposedly decked out in body armor, so you'd need something of decent caliber to effectively penetrate it. But we're thankfully not talking about outlawing bullet-resistant armor.
...Outside of that one politician, but he got destroyed for that silliness.
Gergar12 said:
5 million people's opinions(alleged) shouldn't matter when children are being killed.
Similar ideas for people on the other side of the aisle, but in that instance they believe in different measures. It's all opinions and takes on things.
And yes the NRA's real power comes from their members as Rubio told us when he was confronted by Marjory Stoneman Douglas High school, but they reactionary extremists who have too much free time on their hands.
Or citizens like you and me. I forget if you're an American, so sorry if I'm making an assumption.
Also, most NRA members support light gun control(background checks, and no guns sold to terror watch list) which NRA corporate leadership disagrees with on the chance that it sells a thousand fewer Ar-15s.
The NRA has let pass gun control bills on several occasions, and that's had a lot of their supporters jump ship and support the GOA and 2AF instead. I know I'm not giving the NRA a single cent.
Guns in civilian hands are the modern-day social carcinogen.
Guns in the hands of exclusively corrupt police, gang members, and the supposed neo-nazi pedophile child murdering government would be worse, I'd reckon. I just don't get the logic.
Lil devils x said:
It is far easier to stop someone killing with knifes, swords and even bombs than it is with guns because it does not take much prior planning and they can kill many more people quickly.
Bombs may take a bit more planning, but I can guarantee to you that you can lay a lot more to waste with explosives than you ever could with a firearm. I'm dreading the day we get an intelligent murderer that takes up McVeigh's torch and starts exploding the shit out of people.
Yes, people who want to kill will try to do so, but I would not be alive today if the person trying to kill me had used a firearm. Instead the first time he tried to strangle me with a cord in my sleep, the second time he wanted to slit my throat in my sleep. because he did not use a gun, I was able to fight for my life and survive the first attempt and my neighbor saved my life on the second attempt but my neighbor was stabbed in the process and lived. If the man trying to kill me had used a firearm, I would not be here to tell you about it.
Well I'm glad you're still here. I can't comment much because I don't know the whole situation, and I really don't want to pry.
Of course societal issues fueling violence should be addressed, but this is not an either/or situation. We should be doing everything possible to reduce it, not just one or the other.
From my view, it's the issue of people with the desire to kill. Hatred. This is all on the human being that takes up the mission to end life.
First of all, I have noticed that the schools in my area are different than schools in many other areas, but this is actually due to the gang war violence in the 80's and 90's being so prevalent in the DFW area. We had metal detectors at the doors when I was in school and armed school cops on premises. We had bulletproof glass and double door caged areas built into the school and lockdown buttons, not just at the main entrance, but also the other entrances that could be accessed from outside including the auditorium and gyms. These did not initially exist in the gym and auditorium but after we had a person come to a prep rally with a gun to one of the gyms they added this protection to the other entrances as well.
In the morning when we went to school we had to go through metal detectors and bag searches to be able to get into the building. All emergency exits in the building had teacher monitors in the morning in addition to cameras to prevent students from letting people in to alternative entrances. The schools here have police hubs on the premises, so there are always police officer's present. Of course all of these protections even being present on my cousins school in Dallas, it still did not prevent a stolen car being chased by police to be rammed through the front doors, but that could have actually been prevented by putting exterior obstacle, "art" such as those giant round red balls out in front of target or the poles out in front of Walmart, which I think they added something like that to his school after it was rebuilt. Having armed police on premises is a better solution than having armed random people who are more likely o cause more harm than good.
I don't really trust police to hit the side of a barn, is a major issue with relying on that.
The reality is though, we don't just want to protect people in schools, we want to protect people everywhere, even where no adults are present. We want the children playing on the playground alone to be protected, the kids walking home from school and playing in their yards and sleeping in their beds from being hit with stray bullets. That can only happen if we reduce the number of people with guns in the first place.
So... we're talking about stray rounds now, not shootings? Like, I should be bringing up cars again if we're going into this.
As for your points:
1)Why would they be dead, can they not own pepper spray and a taser and who is trying to kill them? It isn't like they can't have things to defend themselves with, just not firearms where they can kill a bunch of people quickly.
Pepper Spray and Tasers are not particularly effective, especially against someone who has experienced either before. Someone can power through the burning of spray quite easily, and it can also effect the person using it in a closed space. Tasers specifically require skin contact and praying that they hit their mark, and even then their success rate is just so utter garbage. For a bit more info, the ex is a rather large male and the person at risk is a female with their daughter. I have no doubt that male has experienced both things before and even then, can easily power through both if we're assuming they have been properly deployed. I would trust neither to protect them.
...I've also noticed that you didn't address the fact that said person has readily abused the system and would, logically, disarm their potential victim under your standard. Your system has empowered an abuser to do as they please, with the backing of the state.
2)I own a Glock 40, that the guy sold to me at a gun show and never asked for my ID. He didn't even know if I was of age to buy a gun. I look so young I get carded for rated R movies and alcohol, but I can walk into a gun show and by a glock 40 without an ID.
They should regulate the size of the clip further and do away with " grandfathering in" illegal clips such as the one I own
...You didn't just admit to having an illegal Magazine, right? I'm just assuming that you're meaning the one you own should be illegal as well.
as well and that would greatly reduce the amount of damage that could be done as they would be forced to change clips as the larger clips are confiscated over time.
Buy em illegally, reload faster, 3D printing, ect. Not gonna work. Hasn't worked.
There is no reason I should even own the 15 round clip I have that was given to me and I would have no problem turning it in in exchange for a smaller one and/or financial reimbursement through a gun buyback program as long as they are destroying what is turned in rather than reselling them. As long as they grandfather the clips and guns they have banned, they are still on the streets. That needs to change.
Why shouldn't you own a 15 round magazine? Here's a reason you should be able to.
3)We have people considered adults when their judgment centers of their brains are not fully formed because the laws are not based on science. This is also why we have so many stupid crimes committed by people under the age of 26 and why we have ignorant government officials declaring tomato's to be vegetables when they are scientifically fruits.
Aren't they far older than 26?
Because the laws are not currently based on science does not somehow make it any more "right", it just makes the society that allows this to be the case less logical and does not address the issues caused by this adequately.
Doesn't make it wrong either. We can do a lot of things with the backing of science that are right and wrong.
EDIT: In my culture, the forced marriage and treatment of girls in " western culture" was seen as " child molestation" as it is traditional in our culture for women and men not to marry or be considered mature until their mid 20's. after their 'reckless stage" was through even though we had not had the brain scans yet it was apparent by the actions of teens they still had much maturing to do before they were ready for adult decisions. I am not sure why they do not view teens the same way in western culture.
Maybe at a certain point, it's believed that people can make generally mature decisions at a certain age? Age of consent varies by state, California upped cigs to 21, enlistment for military is 18, ect. Hard to say what age some things people are able to truly grasp, but to say we're all basically children until 26 is a bit much for pretty much anyone. If anything, we might just be babying people too much as is, but that's a whole other thing.