• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

The real solution to the gun violence is enacting policies and laws to once again strengthen the middle class and quit trying to redistribute everything to the already-wealthy, and for the political machine to quit spreading dissent and driving in a wedge between two imaginary groups of people, and for our society to get real with itself. Not gun control. However, I do believe large magazine semiautomatic/automatic weapons don't belong in the hands of citizens. And I think gun shows are insanity, why even have laws if you can easily skirt them legally?
 
alasdairm said:
nasim aghdam was a u.s. citizen.

i think you touch on an important point.

when this broke, i'm sure some people just assumed this was an attack by a muslim. the shooter was not muslim. or she had to be an illegla immigrant, right? she was not. but she didn't fit the comfortable narratives associated with gun violence so people just started making them up: People Are Molding Their Responses to Nasim Aghdam to Fit the Shape of Their Bigotry

this case is notable because she didn't fit the profile of common shooters in incidences like this one. but there is one common factor: she chose a gun.

alasdair
Click to expand...

great link.
 
Xorkoth said:
The real solution to the gun violence is enacting policies and laws to once again strengthen the middle class and quit trying to redistribute everything to the already-wealthy, and for the political machine to quit spreading dissent and driving in a wedge between two imaginary groups of people, and for our society to get real with itself. Not gun control. However, I do believe large magazine semiautomatic/automatic weapons don't belong in the hands of citizens. And I think gun shows are insanity, why even have laws if you can easily skirt them legally?
Click to expand...

I think that people need to stop basing laws around their assumptions. People just keep assuming that the problems are obvious. They're not.

Virtually none of these spree shooters got their guns at gun shows anyway, so what's the point in targeting that? Most gun show sales do background checks anyway. It's an imaginary problem. And honestly, it's playing into the gun lobby hands. It's focusing on a make believe problem that they will happily sacrifice, buying time and keeping focus away from real issues.

You think the gun industry actually cares about gun show sales? They don't make money off it. It's a joke issue that keeps you distracted. Something they can fight over and keep focus away from things they do care about, that they don't care about even if they lose.

The reality or America's gun problem is not nearly as obvious as everyone thinks. The reality of nearly any real world problem is generally not as simple as people imagine.
 
How about just forgetting about gun control and just let these murders and killing sprees become legal.

It seems to me no one capable of doing anything to reduce the chances of guns in the wrong hands because of the need to have guns to protect themselves from guns in the wrong hands.

So, screw it.


Its all too hard, lives of those killed arent really worth as much as votes, clearly no one cares until maybe you die or your family.

But then, no one will care about justice for you either and you would have died in vain. Seriously- no one gives a shit about a few dead people here and there.


Spree shooters just have a bad day or get upset over fick all, good thing they have guns easily got to kill people with. Its their right to bear arms so maybe just deal with it.
 
Last edited:
Well, the one seemingly obvious thing which is easily controlled simply wont happen due to absolutely any fathomable reason either.


Want guns? You got em. Comes with a price though and the price is obviously deaths and injuries incurred by people who dont matter .

Im pretty sure theres been more than a few disgruntled you tubers or racists or gamblers around who could just get tipped over the edge and have a gun or 10.


Theres clearly a lot of shootings by cops who just assume everyone is armed and just shoot first and ask questions later. I saw that footage of the wheelchair bloke shot dead as he couldnt raise his hands! Thats messed up. Totally bonkers.


If I had a gun Is be in jail or dead a few times. Good thing I DONT HAVE ONE.





Meh.
 
Captain.Heroin said:
If you're ever held at gunpoint or are a victim of gun violence, you'll wish you had one. Not that they get banned.

Why don't we ban knives next?
Click to expand...

Never been held at gun point. It's really uncommon in Australia for armed robbery to feature a gun.

Which is kinda the point.

To be honest, if someone held a gun to me and demanded my wallet, I'd hand it over. I'm not dying (or killing) for a few dollars.
 
Captain.Heroin said:
If you're ever held at gunpoint or are a victim of gun violence, you'll wish you had one. Not that they get banned.

Why don't we ban knives next?
Click to expand...


Yes. Ban everything and any solid or liquid or gas simply because we can't fathom the amount of freedom gained when you're not worried about how many guns there are!
 
Captain.Heroin said:
If you're ever held at gunpoint or are a victim of gun violence, you'll wish you had one. Not that they get banned.

Why don't we ban knives next?
Click to expand...


That's a really stoopid argument and the only way to answer a question with a question is with another question.

If you were at the top of a hotel with a knife and intended to kill as many concert goers as possible, how many would you kill at that vantage point with a knife?


Would you have to come into close range or just throw it at the window and hope you kill at least one.


If you simply refuse to see that America does not seem to realise not everyone is normal, people can be crazy at any time and are capable of killing and wounding other people like it is a war zone. Or maybe you do and somehow think that if you as an individual has a gun too then all's good and well? They are not bloody toys and FFS no if idiots like what's his name...whomever the latest shooters are this month... get them them hell no. You are not safe. You're scared.


How dumb are these gun mad people? There are people even more intent on having as many guns as possible than you, crazier than you, you just don't know who or where they are.

Good job mates.
 
swilow said:
Never been held at gun point. It's really uncommon in Australia for armed robbery to feature a gun.

Which is kinda the point.
Click to expand...

If the laws changed, do you really think lots and lots of people would buy them and just start shooting each other? Do you think the crime rate would explode?

I suspect many people would go about their daily lives as if not a lot had changed...
 
Captain.Heroin said:
If the laws changed, do you really think lots and lots of people would buy them and just start shooting each other? Do you think the crime rate would explode?

I suspect many people would go about their daily lives as if not a lot had changed...
Click to expand...

The only thing that would change is that eventually there would be another spree shooting. Most likely there will be another one eventually anyway it'll just take much much longer with the current gun laws than without. That and more crimes would be committed with guns, but based on history, it shouldn't have any effect on how many people die.

I suppose you can argue saving those few dozen people is worth taking away the freedoms. I don't, because I don't wanna live in a society so pathological obsessed with safety that everything gets banned to save a handful of people while social problems that kill thousands are ignored all because of people's perceptions. But it's an argument you could make.

It seems obvious to me even without knowing the statistics, I've seen how easy it is to get a gun illegally in Australia. Which means all gun control changes is it keeps guns out of the hands of criminals who don't want to actually kill anyone to start with, who then use knives instead. So no noticeable change happens to the number of dead. And the criminals who really wanna kill someone were always uncommon and are still able to get guns of they want them.

Seriously, Australians make me laugh when they talk about how happy they are there aren't any guns. Cause I've seen criminals armed to the teeth.

It does stop spree killers, because they aren't usually career criminals. So they don't have the sources to get a gun. But compared to all the crime that barely even makes the news, statistically they amount to nothing.
 
Last edited:
Captain.Heroin said:
If the laws changed, do you really think lots and lots of people would buy them and just start shooting each other? Do you think the crime rate would explode?

I suspect many people would go about their daily lives as if not a lot had changed...
Click to expand...

No, but without guns we don't need to worry as much about being held at gunpoint. Hence we don't need guns to defend against guns.
 
JessFR said:
The only thing that would change is that eventually there would be another spree shooting. Most likely there will be another one eventually anyway it'll just take much much longer with the current gun laws than without. That and more crimes would be committed with guns, but based on history, it shouldn't have any effect on how many people die.

I suppose you can argue saving those few dozen people is worth taking away the freedoms. I don't, because I don't wanna live in a society so pathological obsessed with safety that everything gets banned to save a handful of people while social problems that kill thousands are ignored all because of people's perceptions. But it's an argument you could make.

It seems obvious to me even without knowing the statistics, I've seen how easy it is to get a gun illegally in Australia. Which means all gun control changes is it keeps guns out of the hands of criminals who don't want to actually kill anyone to start with, who then use knives instead. So no noticeable change happens to the number of dead. And the criminals who really wanna kill someone were always uncommon and are still able to get guns of they want them.

Seriously, Australians make me laugh when they talk about how happy they are there aren't any guns. Cause I've seen criminals armed to the teeth.

It does stop spree killers, because they aren't usually career criminals. So they don't have the sources to get a gun. But compared to all the crime that barely even makes the news, statistically they amount to nothing.
Click to expand...

If we're trying to save a maximum number of lives, we need to ban tobacco, re-ban alcohol (and we all know how well that turned out 8(), get rid of cars, limit/eliminate emissions...

We're not moving in any of those directions (aside from limiting nicotine in tobacco; a recent move that may or may not transpire past the Trump presidency).

I agree heavily with the part I bolded.
 
Really I'd argue that none of them save significant numbers of lives. Because none of them work that well. Most of them make the situation worse.

I don't think banning guns makes the situation worse in a lives lost sense of the word. But I do think it reduces societies freedom in exchange for very very little gain. At which point my question is, why do we suddenly care so so much more about these couple dozen people? There's lots of other freedoms we could sacrifice so save a very small number of people, where do we draw the line? Maybe we should require everyone to be implanted with a tracking device. Sure it'd be a huge privacy infringement, but it would likely save a few lives. Probably more lives than those lost from spree killers.

I mention spree killers because that's the only positive result of gun control ive been able to prove. That and perhaps a small reduction in completes suicides in some areas. But then again that once again makes me wonder "why guns? There's other things we could do that would likely save even more people if saving people justifies absolutely anything". The answer of course is that it's because the guns aren't a means to an end. They are the end. Banning them is the desired outcome first, anyone saved form it is an added bonus. In the minds of most antigun types anyway. Must like the antismoking types. They stopped caring long ago about the health effects, now they hate smoking for smokings sake. And will try and find health problems with anything resembling it, such as ecigs. Because saving lives is now just a bonus. The goal is the smoking itself which they hate for the sake of hating it.
 
Indeed; even if it prevented all acts of terrorism past and present, or something ridiculously perfect like that (which is highly unrealistic and impossible), I still wouldn't give up my first (or second) amendment rights.
 
I'd like to suggest that the number of people affected by a shooting is greater than the number actually killed.

It's greater than the number and severity of all medical casualties.

It's even greater than the number of those directly affected, such as witnesses and loved ones.

Obviously it's the worst outcome, but being killed is not the only negative impact that these shootings have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top