This was a total tragedy and travesty. I was deeply saddened upon hearing about this, not really knowing how to process such massive losses. Attended the London vigil last Monday, it was very moving, but doesn't do much for the victims, their families or friends. Just appalling. Still, while there have been some horrid responses, it's been very uplifting to see the love shared between so many parts of the community since it took place - LGBT, muslim, US, straight etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roiffalo
If we take away guns from the law-abiding citizens, what's to stop the people with bad intentions to get guns by illegal means? If they want guns for murder reasons, they won't give two shits about getting a firearm illegally!
There will always be gun violence, the question is whether or not you want the innocent to be defenseless or given the option to protect themselves when they become the victims of it. Plain and simple.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheebacheeba
- I feel like there would be less crimes of passion among ordinary folks, less chance of a bad day or bad temper ending in disaster...though I'm sure these are somewhat minimal cases.
I'd say most street level burglars/robbers would be less inclined towards bringing a gun as their weapon of choice - while there would be access to the firearms, if where I live is anything to go by, when they're outlawed they become quite a bit more expensive (not information from first hand experience here).
|
I agree with much of what Cheebs has said in response to this, although I would go further and say I totally disagree with ordinary folk having guns. As Cheeba said, not only do guns become more expensive when outlawed, but they become significantly harder to procure. A disillusioned college student or jilted lover will find it FAR more difficult to get hold of distance-death weapons, let alone automatic ones. You think Jim who's pissed because he wasn't invited to prom can just walk down to the dodgy end of the docks to do a deal for an illegal gun.
More than anything, I find the argument that ordinary people need the guns to stop these mass shootings falls down when you consider that approximately (and I know it varies state to state)
1/3 households in the US own a gun...and there are still mass shootings almost every single day. Clearly, ordinary people owning guns isn't working very much. I don't doubt that occasionally a decent person with a gun stops a bad situation from getting worse, but 475 people dying in mass shootings alone in ONE YEAR is too many. Look at similar countries with tighter gun control - the UK, Australia, most of Europe in general! Does gun crime happen? Of COURSE it does, but it is so signicantly reduced. Including suicide, accidental deaths and justifiable homicides, the rate of gun related deaths per 100,000 people in the US is 50x higher than in the UK. That's staggering.
Clearly, guns are a large part of US culture that people hold dear, and for many I think it forms some kind of symbol of american power/freedom from state. With that in mind, while I believe taking all guns would MASSIVELY improve the situation, it's unrealistic. It's too much of a political power play to block that sort of thing and keep them in. But this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheebacheeba
I think that the best was to address the overall issue would be to kind of means-test to get a permit. Avoid mental illness, periodic testing for those that are prone to it. Veto anyone that's been involved with violent or gang crime...and maybe above all, make it so ordinary people can't go and by automatic weapons, or those that would enable them to mow down a crowd of people, as what's happened here.
Maybe if a person wants a gun for actual protection - Ok, they can get a pistol of some sort?
A licensed hunter can check out a hunting rifle as needed.
|
This makes sense. Obviously the 2nd amendment is indiscriminate in the Americans it proclaims have a right to bear arms. But 230 years ago, arms were different and people were different. Culture was different, the world was different, cities were different. To still hold onto that and not think it's about time that some significant adjustments and additions need to be made...it just seems baffling to me, and just about any non-US citizen I speak to.
I'm not sure exactly how many of my views you agree/disagree with, so please don't think I'm lecturing you or telling you anything you haven't heard before, but I felt as though much of it needed to be said.