Guns are only a part of the problem. You can’t stop insane mass murderers by getting rid of guns, but at the same time, there’s no guarantee that guns will be perfectly okay if you approach the problem from another angle, e.g. better mental healthcare.
That’s not the fucking point. Since the beginning, guns were invented by with the sole purpose of killing. That’s what they’re for. Killing people, and killing animals. Guns don’t do anything other than kill and destroy. That’s the fucking point.
People always killed people and probably always will. And I’m really tired of the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” line of thought.
Oh dear sweet…
NO ONE IS SAYING THAT. Get off that, will you guys?
It would have been easier if the Founding Fathers hadn’t added the guns amendment to the Bill of Rights in the first place. But they did, and now we have to deal with that.
Their rationale for that amendment no longer applies. But it’s still constitutional law, and removing that right would alienate the followers of that law. It’s difficult to remove it since there’s already an established community of law-abiding gun owners who shoot for sport and enjoyment rather than the intent to kill. It would be unfair to them.
Which brings us back to the question: Is it okay to punish the established majority in the name of security, because of the actions of a very small minority?
Basically the country just dug itself into the hole that it’s in, and there isn’t any easy way to get itself out.
Think of gun control as Ubisoft’s DRM. In an extrapolated worst case scenario, say someone ramrods a total gun ban through Congress and somehow managed to repeal the second amendment. Ubisoft’s awful DRM is similarly ridiculous in that it requires a constant online connection to even play single player because PIRATES MUST BE PUNISHED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CONSUMER. I realize this is risking an apples and oranges comparison, but honestly- is either case justified? Do the ends justify the means in either case, and does it actually have any effect on criminal activity, murderers or pirates? That is the question that must be answered before anyone comes up with a “sensible” form of gun control.
I know, since they’re all still holding on to ancient beliefs, laws and rights.
When a child shows any sign of mental issues (or anything that isn’t considered normal (like being asocial)): throw it off a cliff.
There, future mass-murders prevented.
I remember there was a post on 4chan where an Anon stated he will make the news or someshit like that.
Or it was a troll, can’t remember.
I just read an article about ANOTHER 18 year old dude who was plotting to massacre his high-school in Oklahoma
Pretty simple actually. Before throwing old arguments such as “the person who pulls the trigger is the killer, not the gun” at us, take a look at how other countries solves it. Norway and Japan are great examples, in 2008 there was ~9500 ‘gun related homicides’ in the US, now Japan only has about 1/3 of Americas population so the number should be around 3000, right? No, it was 11, that says something doesn’t it? For once I’d like to see Americans stop hiding behind their so called constitution, and realize that some liberties must be sacrificed in order to have a working society.
You can perfectly live with a lot less guns. It is not a heresy, especially if you have a good law enforcement to rely on (and you guys have it).
The fact that you have “the right to” doesn’t mean that you “need to” own a gun, but a good quota of gun owners misunderstands that. IMHO it’s kind of an American cultural thing, deeply rooted like Thanksgiving.
Facts: 270.000.000 civilian firearms on a population of 315.000.000, 88.8 every 100 people, ranked 1st in the world for civilian gun ownership (source: “The Guardian”).
And I agree with the thesis that “if you don’t have it, you are less likely to use it”.
Since it’s so deeply rooted and no-one can expect a cultural revolution from the “bottom” on the topic in a short time span (certainly not in a couple of decades or so), I think that a drastic legilastive act from “above”, although impopular and rights-hurting for those who are respectful for the actual law, could be, at the present time, the most effective solution in the view of safeguarding the population more. A good government takes care of its citizens, in every possible way.
Other actions can be taken in parallel with this, but let’s start from here. As I said, you can live with a lot less guns.
The problem I see with getting rid of firearms in America is forcing the owners to actually give them up.
^ I think so too. Alot of people like their firearms and won’t want to give them up, and it’s understandable, it’s their property and right.
I don’t want people to “give up” their firearms but I think Sweden has a good approach, though it could be slightly modified:
If you want to own a gun, you are required to go through training so that you can show aptitude in using and storing it. Will it eliminate ALL wrongful fatalities? No. That’s not the intention any more than seatbelts are to protect against ALL injury or ALL death in ALL car accidents (the “perfect solution” fallacy). Complete eradication of wrongful gun deaths is not expected outcome. The goal here is reduction.
Something like what happened in Connecticut could happen even under this plan but again, the goal is not eradication, but reduction. And more needs to happen than this, such as a complete reformation of the mental health system in the United States.
It would help tremendously, but it’s going to take time and, more importantly, it’s going to take money. Which means that spending will increase. But I’m wondering which is more important: Money or lives.
I know. That’s why I said “drastic”, “impopular” and “rights-hurting”. But sometimes harsh choices must be taken for a better goal.
The problem is not only to reduce the future sales of weapons, but also to deal with the ones currently circulating: 270.000.000.
Since a weapon lasts forever (it’s not a deteriorating good), a way to reduce the current amount of (unnecessary) civilian guns in America would be to actively take them from their owners. All the legally-acquired weapons are identifiable and trackable; the state could “buy them back” from the owners, i.e. give the owners the equivalent in money.
I know it’s terribly complicated to make it work and no-one would like it, but if we agree that a reduction must be performed, it’s an idea.
Do these 270.000.000 owners really need a gun or a rifle? Some will go hunting, ok, but… 270.000.000 people? What for? Self-defense? All of them? What’s the purpouse of the police, then?
The rest of the world doesn’t have such firepower in the citizens’ hands, but is it a much terrible, dangerous place for this reason? Far from it. Every country has its problems, but America is the only one where I heard of mass-shootings with this mournful frequency. And it’s a matter of fact.
IMHO, if they start with eradicating the idea that “the gun is your friend”, by legislation or whatever, maybe there is some room for things to change. Not physically having it in your hand will prevent you from using it.
Otherwise, nothing will happen.
That’s a very good approach.
That would led to more shootings and killings. Kids arnt respondsible for guns
I think Karamazov was being sarcastic (see “trained ninjas”).
Honestly, the reason why most people have rifles is for sport rather than self-defense, regardless of what they actually say. And that would be okay, if it weren’t for the small number of maniacs who give that group a bad name and represent a danger to everyone else.
The media is also to blame here in these recent shootings. The more these things get covered by sensationalist media that treats these killers like celebrities, the more deranged people will think it’s a popularity contest! It’s actually ridiculous. The killers are focused on more than the victims!
Not to mention the logistical nightmare that would result from that. What do you do with that many unwanted weapons?
And then there’s the ammunition, and all the companies and stores that make/sell guns that would have to be forcibly shut down…
-snip-