Senate Gun Control

Also, I‘m going to keep reposting this every few pages because it shows so clearly what absolute lies the gun lobby and their minions in Congress are propagating

 

I hate to break it you, but countries have different definitions of violent crime. For example, in the UK, slapping or pushing someone is considered a violent crime; sexual offences, such as rape are considered too, where the US only registers rape as a violent crime - if a weapon is used to force a victim into a sexual act.

But, of course, we have to defend those precious firearms in the US which are more important than human lives.

 

As much I heard about bullying and resulting suicides in the media, it never happened to anyone in my school. What I did see was my peers and I become self-destructive as a result of my/their parents being strict and overprotective. Concerta and similar medications also made my peers and I self-destructive. Furthermore, declining tobacco consumption, alcohol consuption, and sexual activity may be causing a loss of coping mechanisms.

School shootings happened in the past, but they were considered local news.

 

I guess one of my biggest questions is what has changed in the last thirty odd years. Semi automatic pistols with detachable magazines have been available since the 1890s, rifles of similar performance since the mid 1900s. Why are mass shootings a relatively recent development then? What has changed to make that happen? Even the AR-15 pattern rifle has been around since the 60s, so we haven't hit some new perfection of a killing machine. With the Internet it is easier than ever to learn how to make a gun or bomb at home. Is it the guns or the people that are the issue? As much as mass shootings make the news, suicides and gang violence compose the vast majority of gun violence.

 

They aren't. The recent development is treating them as national news instead of local news.

 

We've glamorized the gun for one thing.

 

If that's true, then it implies they are getting rarer, because news is only newsworthy by virtue of being shocking/informative.

 

Their generation will be the ones to pass gun control and radical change America.

There is some hope for the future.

 

So I mentioned this before in a previous post, but I want to know from the pro-gun individuals here. Why do you need an AR15 or other military-esque weaponry? My husband grew up hunting because the military didn't pay his father enough to keep food on the table. They never used an AR15. He claims that the only reason why someone would need an AR15 is that they are hunting people or because they have some issues.

 

An interesting article from Bloomberg:

Specifically, that ownership of guns by households in the US dropped from 47% in 1973 to 31% in 2014, according to one study... and even more interesting, another study indicates that about half the guns in the US are owned by 3% of the adult population, with an average of 17 guns per person owned by these 'super owners'.

 

The technical term for those in the 3% is "****ing Nutjobs."

 

People should cut the BS and come out and say what they really want to do: they want these guns to shoot other people, regardless of who they are. Shouldn't be too hard. They already came out in the open as racists and bigots when Stable Genius became President and validated their existence.

 

Solid argument, well-researched data, logically presented points.So glad you're here to actually discuss your viewpoint.

 

Let me know if you come up, I would be willing to march with ya!

Never have I seen a gun-free zone sign and thought that. Tell me about your childhood. How did this happen that THIS is your first reaction?

 

I like this argument. Whether the 'other people' are government bogeymen or home intruders, it still shows an intent to shoot (and kill) other humans. This could be where the true 'mental illness' lies.

 

The correlation between racism and gun ownership in the United States is clear, if only from the Philando Castile case alone and the NRA feeling safe in its (non-)reaction.

 

Presuming we survive Trump and the GOP having a stranglehold on our government.

/debbiedowner

 

When people deflect to other countries that are worse than we are, what are they saying? That we don't have a problem? That we're fine? That they're okay with the state of things?

Gun nuts whine about being ridiculed. We're in the middle of a grave epidemic, with lives on the line (including the lives of schoolchildren), and I guess they need to be asked nicely even after all these deaths. I'm sure if we just ask nicely, they'll change their minds.

 

ITT: use of wannabe military terminology yet lack of understanding that a real military response would not only include hardening the target but also degrading the enemy's capability to attack in the first place. If any casualties are unacceptable, you cannot simply harden the target and assume that armed personnel are sufficient as a deterrent or response. They aren't. An attacker will always have the initiative and the advantage of surprise. All they have to do is kill or injure one person and they "win". Meanwhile, the "target" has to ensure that everyone makes it out alive, or they "lose".

Even if teachers were armed, someone could approach the school at recess and shoot kids then. Or shoot up a bus while the kids are driving home. Or shoot them as they enter the building in the morning. And they can do this from a hundred feet away, if need be. Civilian spaces will always be "soft targets" and you cannot change that.

But let's say we do want to focus on schools and make them "hard targets": would you be willing to accept a federal tax on firearms and ammunition that would go to support school safety training, metal detectors, and bullet proof infrastructure?