How many mass shootings does it take for someone to WAKE UP!

[legalboxers]

I will not post news articles from your "favorite news channel" or anything else since they downplay it, as well as calling it "fake" like that called Sandy Hook "FAKE"

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/active-shooter-incident-being-investigated-dayton-ohio-police-075400231--abc-news-topstories.html- At least 9 dead, 26 injured in mass shooting in downtown Dayton, Ohio

At least 9 dead, 26 injured in mass shooting in downtown Dayton, Ohio originally appeared on abcnews.go.com

In a second mass shooting in less than 14 hours, at least nine people are dead and more than two dozen were wounded early on Sunday after someone opened fire in downtown Dayton, Ohio, according to police.

The suspected shooter was shot and killed by responding officers "in less than a minute" after opening fire, Mayor Nan Whaley said at a Sunday morning press conference. Police said they were only aware of one shooter.

(MORE: Mass shooting leaves at least 20 dead, dozens injured in El Paso, police say)

Authorities responded quickly to the shooting, first reported at 1 a.m., and said police are regularly present in the crowded district popular with tourists and locals.

Whaley said the shooter wore armor and was carrying a .223-caliber rifle and additional high-capacity magazines.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/el-paso-shooting-20-dead-232800322.html - El Paso shooting: 20 dead in ‘evil act of violence’ at Texas Walmart as police probe ‘hate crime’

Authorities in Texas are quizzing a 21-year-old white man – suspected of posting a racist “manifesto” online – believed to be responsible for a gun attack on a shopping centre that killed 20 people and which police said was the “nexus of a hate crime”.

Video phone footage taken inside a mall in El Paso showed people running in fear for their lives after the shooter entered a Walmart store with a semiautomatic weapon and opened fire. In addition to the 20 fatalities, at least two-dozen people were injured in the latest incident of gun violence to scar the nation.

It appears the suspected shooter – named by multiple media accounts as Patrick Crusius – drove up to ten hours from Alen, a town near Dallas, to target the store in El Paso, a city on the border with Mexico that has long been a home to immigrants. An online posting apparently written several days ago, said the attack was a response to the “Hispanic invasion of Texas”.

2nd Amendment keyboard Cartels...HISTORY LESSON

2nd Amendment..Cira 1791...THAT WAS 228 YEARS AGO!! also..

THEY MEANT THIS!!!!

NOT THIS!!!

and sorry folks.. THIS isn't A REGULATED MILITIA

[brebre234]

People need to wake up and see that this is mostly trump fault. he's incited nothing but racism and violence which divided the country even more. I'm scared to leave my own house because it's so dangerous now which is sad. You can't go to the mall anymore because its unsafe it's better to online shop for clothes. You can't even go to church anymore it's best to stay at home and pray. Same with school it's so unsafe it's better to take online courses. Trump supporters are truly brained washed. They need to open of their eyes and see that Trump is the cause of racism and violence because he insinuate it.

[brebre234]

@hakon96 Yes I dont think it's all his fault but he made the problem even worse than its already is. And for the gun restrictions I dont have a problem with guns because they aren't the ones killing people. It's the person that uses them.

[brebre234]

@HumansExist Yes but I said that because yes I believe in gun restrictions laws but there are people who believe that guns should be banned completely which something I disagree with.

[HumansExist]

Eh, if it had to be banned completely then that does away with having an army and any other military group that has guns.
Unemployment would increase, so there's that too.
Although, I do think that only the automatic/semi/automatic guns should only be used by the military in war situations/training... other than that they shouldn't be used... at the very least, not come into the possession of joe public, since how many people generally speaking know how to use a gun properly?
Let alone have the sense to use it in a self-defence situation?

[HumansExist]

@ThisAndThat mate, we have enough items that can be used as weapons without adding guns to the equation, and they're pretty damn easy to get a hold of.
A gun's only productive use (other than for races if they are indeed used for them) is to keep others off of land or to do bodily harm.
Since that's the case, is it not surprising that people want gun control laws to sort out who is and who isn't allowed to have them?

[ThisAndThat]

@HumansExist You don't know much about history what happens to unarmed societies, do you? A unarmed society is a society that can not protect itself. The 2nd amendment of the constitution of the US wasn't put there for hunting, it was put there to protect is citizens against the gov.

[HumansExist]

@ThisAndThat Hmm, genocide eh?
People's political stances are what lead to that, and yes while allowing guns could reduce the number of deaths, I find it hard to believe that those being killed will be in a situation where they will be able to utilise their guns for protection.
As @purplepoppy said, when faced with a gunfight most people will aim to miss or freeze (especially when faced with trained people from the army).
So yeah, while genocide could be easier to avoid, unless you know how to use a gun, and have had training for such a situation to arise, people aren't likely to be able to survive for very long even with the ability to use guns.

[DonCachondo]

Nonsense. There IS a problem, but Trump didn't start it. We can only hope he's the culmination of it...

[brebre234]

@DonCachondo I didn't say he started it or it's all his fault. I said its Mostly his fault cause he does nothing but insinuate hate and violence. By him doing this he's making the situation worse and dividing the country even more!

[erp01]

How is this Trump's fault when it's been going on for longer than he's been president. You represent part of the issue. Stop pointing fingers and actually come up with a solution

[brebre234]

@erp01 Reading is fundamental. I didn't say it was all his fault I said its MOSTLY. How can we come up with a solution if you have your own president insinuating racism and violence at his rallies? Just think about it. The only solution I have is going out to vote ( which you can't do cause you're only 17) Along with doing something about white supremacy. Racism against African Americans and Mexicans have increased even more because of the President insinuating nothing but hate. I'm not the only whose thinking this way either. And I'm not representing part of nothing cause I'm not a supporter of Trump and im not promoting violence and hate among each other. Im just voicing my opinion which obviously you have a problem with and I don't care. The town of El Paso is also blaming Trump saying that it's his fault and he's not allowed to come to their city. That says a lot about the President.

[June871]

false. people are doing this not trump. people are the cause. trimp does not promote hate or racism and i say this as a minority.

[brebre234]

@June871 I disagree yes he does. He has a long history of his racism against blacks and latinos along with violence at his rallies along with his get em out of his quote. Im not going to list his history of racism and violence because its a lot of it and there are many sources on it this is one of them. I'm also a minority myself too.
www.vox.com/.../donald-trump-racist-racism-history

[brebre234]

@June871 That was an example lol and no I dont read vox. there's other news outlets you could look on that are neutral such as BBC and abc🤷🏽‍♀️

[June871]

most news outlets are left. i form my own opinions, and feel that he is not racist. The shooting in Ohio was inspired by a Elizabeth Warren supporter. why is no one reporting about that? lol

[brebre234]

@erp01 Look my opinion is my opinion I said what I said and I don't have time to be arguing with you. Have a good day.

[brebre234]

@erp01 or I dont have time to be arguing with dumb ass uneducated teenagers. It's like talking to a brick wall. I have better things to do than stay on gag and argue about an opinion that is 3 days old. Let it go.

[brebre234]

@loveslongnails Exactly I agree

[brebre234]

@June871 Lol first off I'm not being defensive I'm just stating my damn opinion. Second how is stating an opinion makes me stupid. I didn't call you stupid when I disagreed with you. Like I told the idiotic 17 year old that you're agreeing with my opinion is my opinion and I said what I said. Apparently you're the one that's so bothered by my opinion cause obviously you and 34 other people are upset about it. Let it go this discussion was 3 days ago and you're still wasting your time trying to convince me that trump is not a racist.

[brebre234]

@erp01 Who tf you calling a hoe you fucking racist cracker. You just mad cause I'm not agreeing with your dumb ass opinion. You obviously pressed. And I already defended my reasoning with you. But I like I said you dont wanna hear it cause you're a trump supporter of course. I'm in law school rn and I know how to defend my arguements obviously you can't. So stop commenting under my shit you fucking uneducated bitch since you wanna call people hoes

[brebre234]

@erp01 Dont twist shit around on me you're the one who started the insults first. All I'm doing is stating an opinion and here comes your ass getting defensive about trump. Gtfo

[Guy201382]

I think you really need to wake up and smell what you are shoveling. 32 mass shootings happened under the Obama administration. Yet you are gonna sit there and tell me you don't feel safe, and it's 'mostly' Trumps fault. So, you weren't scared under Obama as President? Obama was the one who incited a lot of divide long before Trump became President. You are the one that needs the wake up call.

[brebre234]

@Guy201382 Yes there was 32 Mass shootings under president obama but they were all spread out through his four years of presidency. With Trump they are back to back. Plus president obama was not known for spreading hate such as racism and violence which is what trump is doing. Plus he tried to ban assult rifle however dumb Republicans did not want to hear it. I'm not the one who needs to wake up you do cause every time something controversial or bad involves trump, "but obama this obama that. Not everything is about President Obama it's about the heartless asshold president we got whose making issues such as racism and violence worse. I am awake and very well can see what's going on. You're the one whose asleep by defending trump about promoting nothing but hate in the country. I said what I said and my opinion is my opinion.

[June871]

banning rifles won't do anything. I'm from a country that bans them. People just get it illegally or kill others with other even more horrible methods (cars, meat clevers etc). And it's the dems who spread hate by accusing everyone who doesn't agree with them as racist, lying, exaggerating and virtue signalling.

[supercutebutt]

Sadly, I feel we are doomed as a nation. The only solution I see is to lock yourself in your house. There are so many guns out there (what is it now, 2 for every person in the US?) that it's just too late to do much to stop this shit. Trumptards want the world to end and they have all the guns. All we can really do is call out their evil so good people can hide from them.

[legalboxers]

1 downrate. sheeple

[Jackp0t777]

@supercutebutt I hope you do not truly believe that. That Trump supporters want all the guns. It is in our constitution and I am not a Trump supporter and it is not like if they ban guns it will be a world without guns. Look at Canada and the shootings. In England cops have clubs and criminals have guns that they smuggled in. Guns are always going to be here and bad people are always going to get them so banning them is not the solution they are a necessary evil so the cops and others can stop the people who want to do things like these mass shootings.

[Jackp0t777]

@legalboxers the sheeple are the ones who do not learn from history. Hitler took away guns and look what happened. Without guns we would not even be a country the people could not have risen up.

[supercutebutt]

@Jackp0t777 Well here and now, the "Hitlers" all have the guns. Open your eyes.

[legalboxers]

@Jackp0t777 and the sheeple will keep wearing the tin foil red MAGA hats

[Jackp0t777]

No none of that is true. If you do not want a gun don't get one it is simple as that but our founding fathers gave us rights and those rights will stay in tact. Trump is not in any way like Hitler. Stop falling for propaganda.

[legalboxers]

@Jackp0t777 what are WE rising up from though is my question to you? Are we oppressed? NO. We have been instilled in fear of a fake Caravan?

[Jackp0t777]

All cable news spins the truth. a lot of truth is not even on the news. What we need to rise up against is RFID chips, socialism losing our privacy and the right to defend ourselves. These are the important things that the news either will ignore or will brainwash people into wanting. They want us to want gun control they want us to want socialism it is all brainwashing because if they push it on us most people will want to revolt.

[Jackp0t777]

It is an agenda that will take time but they think most people will come around to wanting guns banned. Just look at same sex marriage 20 years ago more people were against it than for it now look it more people are for it than against it. It takes brainwashing and socially engineering to push the things they want.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@Jackp0t777: You can't argue with people who use their emotions rather than their brains to think.

[Jackp0t777]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy exactly

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Thanks for sharing your MyTake with us, sadly people who support
Trump are behind these mass shootings and these are White terrorist
whose behind these mass shootings this is horrible.

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Thanks For Most Helpful Guy :)

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

@AllieKaye Go fuck the problem bitch

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

@Nikolai522 Go get a life level 1 , you won't last on here

[OlderAndWiser]

"[Tench] Coxe was a Pennsylvania businessman, economist, and member of the Confederation Congress who later served as our first assistant secretary of the treasury. During late 1787 and throughout 1788 he wrote a series of essays urging the Constitution’s ratification. Coxe wrote under several pseudonyms, but all four essays in the new volumes were signed “A Pennsylvanian.”

* * *

"Discussion of the right to keep and bear arms was not plentiful during the ratification debates. That is one reason opponents of the individual right to keep and bear arms could maintain for so long that the Second Amendment guarantees only a state power against the federal government. Specifically, opponents argued that the term “militia” refers only to the relatively small body of soldiers actively under arms and supervised by each state.

"Advocates of the “individual right” theory countered that during the Founding Era the term “militia” referred to the citizenry generally, or at least to all able-bodied men between certain ages. This position was supported by James Madison’s Federalist No. 46, in which he referred to an American “militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.” (The number “half a million” approximated the number of able bodied men out of the population of the time.) Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 29 provided some support for the “individual right” interpretation as well.

"But still, these writings did not state unequivocately that all able-bodied males were in the militia; to conclude that, one had to make inferences.

"However, the writings of Tench Coxe were more direct. In his third “Pennsylvanian” essay he wrote as follows: (Capitalization and italics are his.)

"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right. . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

tenthamendmentcenter.com/.../

[nightdrot]

While being sympathetic to your general argument, you are making an ephemeral case by essentially grounding the validity of a right on the technology of the times. Take that argument to its logical conclusion and you will cause much mischief.

For example, the First Amendment right to free speech was written at a time when newspapers and pamphlets were the principle means of communication. Radio, let alone television and, most importantly, social media, were unimaginable.

The written word - which lends itself to prudent deliberation and thoughtful analysis - has been replaced by the immediacy and emotion of images. Take then the notion that if you articulate an idea that you give that idea the right to prevail, and you make the prudential case for abolishing free speech.

We accept, with any right, the potentiality that it may conduce to evil as much as it may conduce to good. The method by which it is exercised is less consequential then the social context and intellectual suppositions in which it is exercised.

The real issue with the Second Amendment is that rights are viewed by Americans in absolutist terms. As Burke pointed out, such "natural rights" do exist, but "their abstract perfection is their practical defect." Such rights are applied with too little regard to the cultural context in which they exist.

There is much to suggest that the culture is incapable of prudently and sensibly managing the rights it abstractly attributes to itself. Alexander Hamilton made the point that if you have a Bill of Rights you extend to the government the authority to regulate those rights.

Indeed, the regulation of those rights is actually routine. Free speech is limited by slander, perjury, defamation and copyright laws, among others. Freedom of religion is allowed consistent with public order - if a religion calls for human sacrifice, it is prohibited. There are other examples and the list is long.

However, in the matter of the right to bear arms, in part, guns are woven into the culture in various ways. An emphasis on self-defense - particularly in urban areas where crime tends to be high - rural areas where hunting is an important sport, gun collectors and gun clubs, and, as you noted, an ethic rooted in America's libertarian traditions of resistance to tyranny. (Though the notion that the government is a threat to liberty at this interregnum in the nation's life is patently absurd. So supine is the government that it cannot even balance its budget lest it ask the public to pay for what they buy.)

The segment of the population that tends toward absolutism on the Second Amendment is actually quite small, but is extremely intense. Whereas those who take a more nuanced view of gun rights tend to be less intense and more ambivalent. It is not generally their top priority and so the country tends, on the whole, to give both culturally and legally a wide scope to gun rights.

However, it is not at all clear that the culture, as it devolves into a populist tone and an abstract libertarianism with an emphasis on individualism at the expense of community standards, that the society can handle responsibly the rights it has accrued to itself. Including gun rights.

Burke said "men have no right to that which is not reasonable," and rights must be defined through the prism of the context in which they are exercised. What the nation has in the Second Amendment is a right that presupposes an ethic of community standards that are at this moment in the nation's life, at best, fraying. In short, that presupposition needs to be re-examined and, pace Hamilton, the right needs to be regulated in the light of such a re-examination.

In short, what matters is not the method, but the ethical and social context in which rights are defined and exercised. Americans are, in this time in history, inclined to view freedom as an end in itself and not a means to an end and thus rights are defined in absolutist terms. Here is where the problem begins.

[RLHJR]

You have no clue what you are talking about. You are literally at mouth breather level of stupidity.

1. The Second Amendment was first and foremost, meant to make sure that the public would always have the means to wage war against their government, should they need to.

2. Well Regulated is a military term. In the military, if I tell you to "Police the area," I am not telling you to perform law enforcement, or patrol... I am telling you to clean up the area. Pick up trash... put stuff where it belongs, etc.. Well regulated in military speak, means well functioning with regards to being able to serve its purpose. The militia is not government regulated. Logic alone tells you this without even reading the writings of the likes of Madison, who wrote extensively on this.

The founders wrote extensively about the right to bear arms being first and foremost, to fight back against a tyrannical government. This being the intent, it would be mind numbingly stupid to put the government in charge of the guns that are meant to depose the government, should that be necessary.

3. Madison made it clear that he did not want for America, what England had. You see, England gave the right to keep and bear arms to the citizens, but there were so many gun control measures, that only wealthy land owners could have guns. Madison was very clear about this.

The 2nd Amendment has 3 parts. First part = justification for the Amendment. Second part = whose right is being protected. Third part = how that right is to be protected.

First part... the justification..."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is stating that to keep a state free, no matter who the enemy is, a militia must be able to form in order to protect it. The founders wrote extensively about this. They made it very clear that the enemy of liberty is as likely to be your own government, as the government of another country. The whole point of the Constitution is to keep a tight leash on the Federal Government.

Second part... who owns the right..." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," makes it not only clear who owns the right, but also that no right is being granted. The Amendment does not say, "the people are granted the right." NO, it says "The Right Of The People," which means that the people OWN the right. It is already theirs. Nobody granted them the right... it is a natural born right. It is yours... you own it.

The third part... what is it? What does it do? You learn this by reading the writings of the founders, if you weren't smart enough to figure it out on your own. It's literally just a prohibition. A prohibition on the government. What does it prohibit? Gun control. Simple as that... full stop.

Now... mouth breathers will bring up things like, "but the laws, and the SCOTUS..." Well, they used to say that black people weren't full citizens... only part human. Do you stand by that also? When you bring things like that up, you only highlight that the founders knew what they were talking about... they knew that what they set in motion, would be constantly attacked.

Mouth breathers will claim that they only meant muskets. Wrong. There were many inventions being worked on at the time of the writing, and the founders were aware of them. There was even a pistol that had 50 shots already loaded... though it was expensive. The founders weren't stupid. They understood history, and knew that we went from stones, and clubs made from bones, to cannons with exploding shells. They understood that the musket would not always be the pinnacle of weapons technology. It wasn't even the pinnacle at the time. It was just the most common.

Need more proof? Communities did in fact, create their own cannons, under the second amendment. The reality is this... the founders made it very clear that the intent was that the people... individuals... have the means to wage war. They would not object to rifles such as the AR-15, or M-16s.

[RLHJR]

So some will say that the amount of damage done, is just too great. Nobody is denying that it is not a tragedy when somebody uses a gun to kill innocent people. However, the mouth breathers get so emotional over this that they lose all common sense. For instance, in Nice, France, a single man killed 84 people, including 10 children, with... wait for it... a delivery truck. That's almost 3 times as many people killed in Dayton and El Paso, combined. 3 dead and 264 injured by bombs made with pressure cookers. Could have been worse, with slight modifications, and better placement of the bombs. And, don't look now, but London has a higher murder rate than New York City, and this is prompting them to ban knives there.

[RLHJR]

But you don't need high capacity magazines! Really? Who they hell are you to say what I need. Ever tried to reload a gun, at night, when you are terrified, and or injured? There is a famous interview with FBI agents who had revolvers, in a shootout. They were hit, and so they were injured and terrified, and they talked about how hard it was just to get the gun reloaded, while taking cover behind the car. And these guys had trained to do this.

You don't need an AR to protect your home. Once again, who made you God? You don't want one, fine. Tell me what I need, and I will tell you to go Eff yourself. You decide what you need, and I will decide what I need. ARs have been used by people to defend themselves. And for the uneducated... AR does not stand for Assault Rifle. There is NO SUCH THING as an assault rifle. It is a made up term to try to equate an AR, with military grade guns. The ARMY will not use an AR. It does not meet their requirements. It is not military grade. The only thing it has in common with military grade Assault Weapons, is that it is made to look like them... as a sales gimmick. You can literally strip the cosmetic pieces off, and put on readily available parts that make it into a normal hunting rifle.

[RLHJR]

Like it or not, guns are an equalizer. A small person, such as a young woman, can defend herself, using a gun, if a very large man were to threaten her. It has happened many times. For instance, the famous case in the southwest, where a young mother, alone at home because her husband died recently... she killed one of two intruders as he broke into her house. The second man admitted they were aware of the husband's death, and meant to do very bad things to her. Without that gun, she would have been raped and killed. She's lucky she had a pump action shotgun, and not a musket.

Now... while gun deaths are tragic when it is innocent people that are killed... this is a drop in a bucket, compared to the hundreds of millions of people, who were killed by their own governments, and had no means to fight back.

What... some rifles aren't enough to fight against tanks, and fighter jets, and bombs and missiles? Tell that to the Vietnamese. VC with a ball of rice and an AK = 1... Army with tanks and jets = 0.

It would also be a mistake to assume that the coming civil war, will be some rednecks vs the government. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but more of the military... far more... are very conservative.

[demonics]

I should type up something short and sweet so that I can just copy paste it in response to stupid talking points like this from someone who doesn't know history, the English language, or how propaganda works.

1. Come and take it.
2. Well regulated: The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Militia: "That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free state, that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided." ~George Mason
Draft proposal, 3 Elliot, Debates at 659
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
3. Several firearms of the period were capable of similar rates of fire as modern sporting rifles. By your stupid ass logic, cannons, gatling type guns, and multi barreled volley guns should be unregulated and completely open for public use. "ShOulD cItIzEns OwN TanKs toO?" By your reasoning yes, yes they should. and howitzers, 20 mm guns, and rocket propelled grenades. All of which were available to militia groups of the time. NO WHERE, is it written among the writings of the founding fathers that guns in use for the defense of the nation should be neutered, or made less effective than those in use by the government. They used the word 'ARMS' for a reason.

[Daniela1982]

Nothing is going to stop killings until the mental health crisis in the US is dealt with. All these killers are mentally ill in some way of form. Insurance companies won't pay for more than a short time of mental health care so in a sense they are partly responsible. The one Psychological Health counseling center near me are up to their eyebrows in business, so much they had to expand. The parking lot is always jammed with cars and I hear getting an appointment there is not exactly Johnny on the spot when someone really needs help. And frankly, some of the counselors there just are there for a paycheck and their heart and minds are not really into helping people. One law they should have is no one can buy a gun legally unless they live in the same state as the gun store. If you live in a state where such guns are outlawed than you shouldn't be able to go to a different state and purchase one. No one under 21 should be able to buy a gun, although I would rather see 25. People must keep their guns in a locked gun safe and only the head of household, not any kids, should have access to them. The US Government should halt sales of assault type weapons and offer a generous buy back of these type of guns to get them off the street. Unfortunately, criminals will still manage to get them and are not concerned about gun laws. Deal with the mental health issues and the shootings will stop.

[brebre234]

I agree but you have people who will refuse mental health issues. And we can't help people who doesn't want to be helped. I think by dealing with people who want to be help with lower the percentage of mass shootings but will not end completely because of the people who refuse help.

[Twalli]

@brebre234 I love people trying to explain how an assault rifle is necessary for their protection.

[brebre234]

@Twalli What happen to good old fashion fighting for protection and using your hands as a weapon lol

[shephardjhon]

It wasn't "mental health" it was TERRORISM. Plain and simple.

[Daniela1982]

@brebre234 Because some people cannot beat some of these hyped up freaks on steroids or drugs. It's like Trump beating some guy in Fight Club. As the old phrase says God made men but Colt made them equal.

[brebre234]

@shephardjhon I agree I hate how to media portray mental health by race. If a white guy does a terrorism act he has "mental health issues " But if a black or Arab do it they are terrorist and they should get the death penalty. The media is so biased when it comes to this.

[mateynine]

@brebre234 That's not true. They use "terrorism" for an organized attack or if the killer had some kind of group following. It's not just race. Remember the navy yard shooting? That guy was black and they immediately jumped to mental illness because he acted as an individual.
en.wikipedia.org/.../Washington_Navy_Yard_shooting

[shephardjhon]

@mateynine There IS a following, it is called 8chan and the dark web, hell even GaG seems to have a following of these kinds of people I can name AT LEAST 3 GaG users who at least have the potential to get involved in this terrorist group.
These white supremacist terrorists just had their first twin tower bombing moment (the 90s van attack prior to 9/11). After that there were warnings about AQ but no one listened until 9/11 happened. Right this moment any of these assholes could be boarding a plane and the TSA won't blink an eye because they are white and the FBI won't monitor them or their family/friends because they are American, even if they are legally declared terrorists.
I am NOT the only one saying this, anti-terrorism experts are saying this. People who have experience fighting against Taliban, AQ and Daesh are saying these white extremist terrorists are the same.
www.nytimes.com/.../white-supremacy-terrorism.html

[btbc92]

When bullying stop. When people start taking taking domestic abuse seriously. When people turn to God who gave us guidelines on how to live and treat people. Many scream mental illness and guns. But what others sadly forget many of these people were not born mentally ill. Many of these people were not gun crazy or fanatics of the heck of it. I grew up in a place where gangs, robbing, killing, raping etc goes on. They don't need guns. Real gangs like you see in The Warriors movies and my parents knows these people used anything from broken beer bottles etc to cause havoc. It will never get better. It's not the guns or the so called mentally ill. It's evil people who gets to live off of the backs of others, who mock and bully you to death until somebody commits suicide. The ones who wants to ploy your death because your a good two shoes and those of importance pays attention to you out of jealousy. The racist, the religious-phobics, etc gets other who are different to go p self defense more and start to go mad with insanity and start. We don't listen to these people after they commit these crimes. We just condemn the four crime. Read and hear all the testimonies of every individual young and old who has ever committed such crimes with school shootings. And you'll come to find out that many of them, are victims of exploitations, bullying, assault, and being ostracized. Many of them are sensitive souls who never asked to be tormented and hurt. I know. I want to school with such people. Many of them come from dysfunctional homes and single parent families. So guns are not the problem. Most guns are smuggled or stolen.

[EpicDweeb]

With all due respect... you misunderstand the purpose of the second amendment and what the founding fathers had in mind.

First: People always argue that they only had muskets in mind, but a machine gun had already been invented by that point and it was already clear where the future of firearms was going. They knew full well what they were saying and what it would mean.

Second: The bill of rights was put in place to defend the rights the founding fathers believed absolutely necessary IN LIGHT OF THE CONFLICT WITH ENGLAND. The battle for Lexington and Concord was a battle over a munitions stash. The British intended to seize the people's firearms so there would be no uprising. From the declaration of independence we know what the founding fathers had in mind.

"To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

The second amendment was put in place in order to preserve the ability of the American people to fight against the power of its government in the event of its corruption and usurpation of power. We need the second amendment AND guns in order to possess any means of defending ourselves if and when our nation becomes so corrupt that we can no longer stand for it.

Not only that but guns themselves wouldn't be a problem if everyone weren't acting like pansies with such delicate sensibilities and were willing to carry them with them in order to defend against shooters should it ever come to that. If you don't like guns you don't have to use one... but if you carry a gun, people are less likely to attack you. This has been shown time and time again from statistics created through non-bias studies that those who commit violent crime often pick their targets based on where and who will have the fewest defenses.

[Stoner710]

We can’t without going against the constitution, we have the right to defend ourselves in our home and against a tyrannical government know as today a socialist government.

The Militia is the people of the United States you’re part of the militia I’m part of the militia and all my neighbors and everyone living from LA to New York is part of the militia

What will stop these attack is not having the divisive speech from the left. We’re seeing a rise in white supremacy because all the democrats do is say whites are horrible and check your privilege, people say trumps divisive he’s not the one that sang get in the face of Democrats lawmakers the Democrats are saying get in the face of Republican lawmakers, and the people listening to them. Don’t for get the democrats are the ones who kept black enslaved enacted the Jim Crow laws and we’re trying to prevent people from going to school to the people Who didn’t want desegregation were Democrats, and don’t forget who signed a law that but more black people in prison then any other president back in 1994 it was George H Bush it was Bill Clinton

[7p3ue7]

It doesn't seem to me that any President/party in power puts gun control at the top of their priorities. I'm in the UK and most of the gun crime over here is actually by children and youths who think they are "gangsters" when in fact they are just a load of stupid kids and immature adults who think they are "big" and "tough" being involved in gangs and the drug culture. When we actually start handing out tough sentences for posessing a knife or gun instead of a slap on the wrist and a telling off which isnusually all they get then maybe the idiots will take some notice.
Gun crime and mass shootings in America seems to be a trend that seems on the rise and should be worrying everyone from the top down regardless of the reasons the perportrator has, it is completely unacceptable in "civilised" countries that this is able to happen. But it does and America once again needs to seriously look at their gun laws or lack of them and do something about the supply of military grade weapons sold over the counter like burgers and ice cream. In the UK weapons have to be licensed and it's probably not uncommon, for example, for a farmer to be found having an unlicensed weapon for killing vermin to be dealt with more harshly than a "gangster" who wants to harm other people just because they from a different gang in a different post (zip) code.

[Sinnfeiner]

Sorry to offer a differing but first, the second amendment was written before there were assault riffles. The musket was in fact a military issued weapon so it is reasonable to assume that the founding fathers did in fact mean military weapons for civilians, as there were numerous privately owned cannons. As for well regulated militia: a militia is defined as:

a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

It’s the way the second amendment is worded that stumps people. It doesn’t say guns are only for the militia but “a well regulated militia, being necessary” meaning they understood that the free people might need to be called upon and therefore anyone able to should have the right to own a firearm. No that picture is not a well regulated militia, but if called upon they could be. Most of our soldiers in world war 1 actually brought their own weapons because it was expected of them.

[The6ix]

I'm sorry, but as a Canadian I don't care anymore, my heart goes out to the victims and their families but I don't care about debating or arguing with stupid racist, sexist moronic Americans who kiss the flag and kiss their constitution and their so-called rights of America. I have a political science degree, I'm politically involved against people oppressed and international issues and I'm in law school. There are people on GAG and social media who feel like they are smarter than me who never studied politics in university and I find that quite comical because they simply go based on their own opinions and assumptions.

Americans will never change, I have a feeling that unfortunately, these heinous acts will continue and only get worse. There are movies that depict the future of America as being war-torn, oppressive, violent, and etc. and I believe it is heading in that direction. Things won't change because politicians from either party, senators, government officials, lobbyists and others will continue this same stupid path of allowing free rights for guns, providing billions of dollars to zionist Israel, invading other countries for oil, creating wars, creating terrorist groups like ISIS... Thanks America, your values and your morals are quite pathetic. I raise my hand and stick my middle finger up at anyone who contests my comment regarding this. Change yourselves for the better, change your laws for the better, really focus on what God's message is because this was prophesied over 1400 years that certain countries will hold so much power yet be utterly destructive from the inside and out and I strongly believe in the present day that is the United States of America.

Dislike my comment everyone, talk shit, because things will only get worse until a little light flickers in your mind, until you lose someone close to you due to gun violence then maybe just maybe you will have common sense to stop staying in your ignorant ass ways.

[Waffles731]

Yeah because us Socialist Rifle Assocation fans are so fucking racist, sexist, and total bootlickers.
That's why we are made up of Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, and other assorted left wingers

[The6ix]

Anyone who's pissed who has a guy can be a pussy and shoot someone, just like someone having the ability to type and have a computer or laptop or tablet or smartphone to be racist or sexist online. Let bad things happen because it will never change, let the issues mount up and get worse and worse and worse. When the dust settles people would have had enough. You can know someone who God forbids is a victim of someone who supports open gun laws. I'm not a politician, nor do I want to be one because the majority of them are all corrupt.

[Waffles731]

By that logic, I should be against muslims, pressure cookers, or Immigrants because my Aunt was at the Boston Bombing.
I'm not, I love food, respect religious freedom, and I think we should take in as many immigrants as we can.

[PressOn]

@The6ix - I rarely give "👎" but your statements are well deserving

[The6ix]

@PressOn oh nooooo Lmao, deal with the stupid shit in America then buddy your part of the problem.

[The6ix]

@PressOn america is a shit hole, until god takes someone you love from gun violence you will never care. You will be a dick sucking American to the constitution and an utter stooge.

[The6ix]

@PressOn I’m muting this post and by the way the way I call on more people to dislike my comment because Americans will never learn, most of them support war and violence and racism and sexism. Don’t worry God will show America for the oppression, slavery, genocide and illegal acts they have committed... Mark my words

[Naydyonov]

«As of July 31, 2019, 248 mass shootings have occurred in 2019 that fit the inclusion criteria of this article. This averages out to 1.2 shootings per day. In these shootings, 979 people were shot; of those people, 246 have died.»
This is in a free country with 330 million inhabitants. Unfortunate.

What happens when a bad government is in power?
It means that in an unfree country with half of America's population you had 681,692 - 1,200,000 people shot — by the government during three years. That's 227,231 - 400,000 per year. Even if this was the total but for twenty years instead of three, it'd still amount to 11 300 - 20 000 people shot dead yearly.
This would be 246 dead vs 11 300. But because it wasn't over a course of 20 years, but three, than it's 246 vs 227,231 — making one year of life under totalitarianism 924 times more deadly than life in a free and armed society. Accounting for population it would make one year of life under totalitarianism 1691 times more deadly.

[VaIiant]

Well, if you believe Amendments should be violated due to their age, despite being the foundation of our country, then the right to free speech, the right to privacy, etc... Those should all be gone as well? Or only the ones YOU disagree with?
Gun SAFETY is what we need. Not stripping citizens of their guns who've rightfully earned them.
We've had more people die from drunk driving then mass shootings, should we ban all alcohol? Or continue enforcing it like we have been, and continue watching the drunk driving fatalities decrease.
We need firmer background checks, to raise the age to 21, firearm training, and mental health tests for getting a firearm. Trying to strip all citizens of millions of dollars worth of guns won't do shit, and will only upset the public.

[Grobmate]

Drink Driving, Aids, Drugs... none of that matterss. Statistics don't matter to the victims or their families. Please explain to me in what deluded universe you need semiautomatic weapons including "ASSAULT RIFLES" for personal protection?

If that were the case wouldn't they be "PROTECTION RIFLES"?

[VaIiant]

@Grobmate if your argument is about the names of the rifle you’re insane😂
Statistics weren’t even mentioned, you leftist. And yeah, there’s families of the victims. And THOSE families can decide whether or not they want to keep a gun in their home, for that reason. They don’t get to impose their feelings on the rest of the nation.
There’s thousands of people who owe their lives to a properly trained, armed citizen.

[bluepeng889]

@Grobmate You're an idiot. Semi-automatic rifles (like the AR-15) aren't assault rifles. Assault rifles have to be select-fire, meaning they can switch back and fourth between semi auto mode and full auto mode. And since they are capable of firing automatically, they have been banned under federal law in 1986, along with every other rifle, submachine gun, and pistol that is capable of firing automatically. And we need semi-automatic guns because automatic ones are illegal, and bolt action guns fire too slow. And we need guns in general so we can defend ourselves and our rights against a tyrannical government who tries to take away our rights, including our second amendment rights.
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Who are you going to trust? The politicians (our Founding Fathers) who defeated a tyrannical government (Britain) and founded our country and gave us our basic rights, or the people who are trying to do everything in their power to take away our rights?

[Grobmate]

@bluepeng889 oh really? Why does one need an assault rifle or any semiautomatic rifle for personal protection? Why are they still legal?
They've been banned in Australia since 1996 and guess how many mass shootings have occurred since? None.

Right to bare arms huh? Rights come with responsibilities. Clearly there are irresponsible rifle owners, and people's right to live outweighs the right to play Rambo... sorry but you are the idiot.

Statistics not mentioned? Really? You knuckle dragging, mouth breathing helmet polisher the damn question states "how many need to occur before people wake up"...

[VaIiant]

@Grobmate Australia... the country we created to send our criminals too? LOL. No wonder they banned guns.
Our "Rights" are stated in our constitution, the founding policies of our nation. Maybe we should do everyone a favor and take away your right to free speech.

[Grobmate]

The leftists pretty much have. Go have a look at the UK, where it is an offense to offend someone...

[bluepeng889]

@Grobmate like I said in my previous comment, assault rifles are capable of firing automatically, therefore THEY ARE BANNED UNDER FEDERAL LAW FOR ALL CIVILIANS.

[bluepeng889]

Since we can’t legally possess assault rifles or automatic rifles, and bolt action rifles are bad for self defense, that only leaves us with semi-automatic rifles.

[Naydyonov]

@Grobmate "Please explain to me in what deluded universe you need semiautomatic weapons including "ASSAULT RIFLES" for personal protection?"
If you want a defender taking accurate shots at a bad guy then it's better for him or her to have a rifle. Handguns being inaccurate at medium range often lead to stray bullets. Stray bullets are probably not safe huh.

[Grobmate]

@Naydyonov so one intruder requires the ability to empty a 30 round magazine into the target?

[highjinx]

@Grobmate you take away guns and only the bad guys will have them. Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you.
-- Benjamin Franklin
It is the fist responsibility of every citizen to question authority.
-- Benjamin Franklin None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The great masses of the people... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.
-- Adolf Hitler What luck for the rulers that men do not think.
-- Adolf Hitler

[Grobmate]

@highjinx
Benjamin Franklin, 1706 - 1790 (prior to semi-automatic rifles).
Relevance? NONE

Adolf Hitler, 1889 - 1945 (pioneered semi-automatic rifles and assault rifles during the War he created as a Right Wing Extremist)
RELEVANCE? Irony which further illustrates the absurdity of semi-automatic rifles for personal protection. Certainly didn't help 6,000,000+ Jewish citizens now did it?

[highjinx]

@Grobmate If they were armed they could've changed history possibly. look if you want to roll over and take it in your butt go ahead but i will not. you think banning gun will fix things , it will only make them worse.

[Grobmate]

@highjinx not banning all guns. Banning guns capable of inflicting mass-casualties. How many of the mass shooters were taken out by people, (citizens, not EMS), carrying SEMIAUTOMATIC firearms for personal protection?

[highjinx]

@Grobmate When seconds count the cops are minutes away.

[MajesticTwelve]

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2016 data shows 37,461 people were killed in 34,436 motor vehicle crashes, an average of 102 per day. .

When will you people wake up and ban assault cars? Do you know a prius is essentially a gas AND electric powered mobile weapon of death invented by the Japanese? OMG you guyzzzz!

Seriously, I get it. Guns look "scary" but you know what you're really afraid of? That you cannot control people. Guns, knives, acid, poison, cars. They all kill people. Every day.
The common thing? People. Banning one device will make them use another.
You know why YOU'RE scared? Because you have no way to defend yourself.
Someone wants to shoot you? How you going to fight back sister?
You're not.
Take some gun classes, buy your own, and take responsibility for yourself, and stop worrying about what others are doing that you don't like, because you think it's scary or you just generally disagree with it.

[loveslongnails]

I think you're offering up a straw man here. Most anyone without a criminal record can get a handgun, legally or black market. I have a concealed carry permit, but my.38 isn't going to do me much good against an assault rifle. The debate isn't about your right to own a weapon, it's about your right to own "any or every weapon". Obviously any person can "snap" and use whatever they deem will cause the most destruction, from home made bombs to assault rifles to a vehicle. God only knows how you can predict or stop that.

[highjinx]

yes ban cars, planes, trains, can openers, sticks and stones , straws , red meat, ""drugs oh wait they are banned how is that ban working out?""

[AllieKaye]

Most of these areas are gun free zones. If ANYONE had a gun where these shootings took place there wouldn’t have been so many deaths and people injured. You do realize meth isn’t sold in stores? Its not legal in the United States, but people still get it. Criminals will still get it and you won’t have a weapon to stop them.

[Waffles731]

Meth its so easy a methhead can help make it

[baseballnerd24]

so by that logic should we not have murder laws since criminals will still murder. Also the idea that every single location in America could have a good guy with a gun is not possible

[Waffles731]

@baseballnerd24 How about the places that are 30 minutes or more from a single cop, do you seriously expect them not have an AR-15 or AK pattern rifle for self defense

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@baseball: Cops always show up after a crime has been committed. I'll rather protect myself.

[Waffles731]

@baseballnerd24 there are literally more guns, as in 1.6 guns for every person, civilian owned in the U. S than people don't give me that

[AllieKaye]

Have y’all ever saw a shooting at a gun range? No? Why do you think you haven’t seen one. The shooter knows that’ the majority of not all have a gun.

[AllieKaye]

If*. If people were allowed to carry, we’d have less shootings. Now, I’m not against having laws that make it hard to obtain. You just don’t have a right to take my gun, men ha e tried to control me before and I’ll be damned if I let onether one try and succeed

[AllieKaye]

Apparently I can’t edit and correct spelling mistakes that I can’t see because the post only shows two lines, so I apologize

[highjinx]

go to the corner and stretch out the box

[Serenity2014]

Being from Texas myself, I will honestly say I’m terrified. I grew up being taught that guns are used for protection. (Example: If someone broke into my home) In Texas, it seems like everyone has a gun. But for awhile, people only used them for what they were meant for. Protection. Sure you’d have a tragic event happen, but it was very rare if it were to happen. Now, the people here are different around here. I get treated like a 2nd class citizen just because of my race. I’ve had people threaten me, spit on me and vandalize my stuff. But this type of behavior only started happening within the past few years. I’m literally terrified of going anywhere because I’m afraid for my life. And the fact that there’s so many people around me that have access to kill me easily if they wanted to. Like I said, it wasn’t always like this. People would use their guns for protection. Not to threaten people.

[highjinx]

if this is true you need to move you can't live like that.

[Serenity2014]

@highjinx I’ve been saving up for months to move. And I agree with you. I can’t live like this here anymore.

[Tiffanykells]

Every shooting whether it mass or individual is a tragic event. So too are the countless bombs being dropped on the Iraqis Syrians and countless other countries by so called civil people!!! But Whatever you do America do NOT give up your right to protect yourselves with the 2nd amendment!! Remember why yous have it, for you'll never again be run by foreign governments or tyrannical ones!! "What have you given us? A Republic if YOUS CAN KEEP IT! My grandfather always said the one thing that will keep the western world civil is America's 2nd amendment. Look at us brits minorities in our capital and 2nd 3rd and 4th largest cities which are now implementing sharia law and enforcing religious beliefs over law!!! Greed and corruption is the world's cancer take away your right to bear arms and it's over.

[Matt57]

What’s it like to be so dumb to think there were only Muskets around at that time? There were definitely other weapons that were repeaters like the Puckle Gun and the.46 caliber Giradoni Air Rifle Lewis & Clark had. Not to mention multi-barreled guns that could fire multiple shots at the same time. Oh and people also privately owned cannons and ships and whatnot. Do you really think the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment without thinking about Technological Advancements? Fuck no! I think the reason why most everyone had muskets was because they are cheap and easy to produce, just like people will opt for a cheap Mosin rifle for $350 as opposed to $1200 or so for an FN Scar.

[Kaytiee]

I'm English, and my mother tells me It's an ammendment for Americans that they will bear arms. That's tradition and well I respect that... but for now I can't. When so many are dying everyday because of guns.

Even if America took away the guns completely It still wouldn't be safe because you've had guns so long there would be a big uproar.

Since I'm In england I've NEVER seen a gun, my online American friends say "How do you feel safe?"

"How do you?"

If there were no guns in the first place, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself from guns!!

I feel 100% safe, without a gun and without a knife.

[Kiran_Yagami]

Because when citizens go rogue, they kill dozens. When governments go rogue, the kill MILLIONS. Ask the people of communist China why Mao Zedong banned guns when his regime took power. Or Hitler. Or Joseph Stalin. Every totalitarian regime starts by banning private firearm ownership before it moves on to killing off its own populace a few million at a time.

[VaIiant]

LOL. England has the highest murder rate right now, more so then New York. @Kaytiee

[Kaytiee]

@VaIiant http://prntscr.com/ooo1t8 Actually nope, these are the highest murder rates.

[VaIiant]

Im talking about compared to America.

[Kaytiee]

@VaIiant This Is by country... I can't seem to find uk on here can you?
http://prntscr.com/ooo2w6

[VaIiant]

Are you purposefully ignoring what I'm saying?
ENGLAND HAS A HIGHER MURDER RATE THEN AMERICA. https://igeek.com/w/U.S._vs_U.K._-_Crime/Murder
www.usatoday.com/.../

Due to guns being banned, knives, acids, other forms of killings have risen a LOT in England. You also pass these idiotic laws, like how police can no longer pursue someone on a Moped if they are stealing. Moped thievery skyrocketed.

[Kaytiee]

The chart I showed you, goes by country in 2019 which includes ENGLAND.

[VaIiant]

America also isn’t on the chart- a remote island that we own in the Caribbean does not count 😂

[Kaytiee]

It will be on the chart further down, and maybe you should notice England isn’t on it either! 😂🤭

[VaIiant]

Are you possibly mentally disabled? I’m not saying England has the worlds highest murder rate. I’m saying it is now above America.
It’s literally like you aren’t reading a word I’m saying.

[Kaytiee]

I am reading, if you go on Wikipedia America is the highest country murder rate wise, en.m.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Sorry to burst your bubble x

[VaIiant]

Wikipedia?😂😂You mean, the most inaccurate, heavily false website of all time that you’re literally not allowed to cite in a job/educational setting?
I could edit Wikipedia right now if I wanted to. You know that, right.

[Kaytiee]

You know the editing has to be approved right? x

[VaIiant]

Also even Wikipedia doesn't SAY AMERICA. It says the America’s, as in South America countries, and proceeds to list 10 South American countries. You’re so fucking stupid it’s incredible. Even your own damn sources prove you wrong

[Kaytiee]

Don’t trust wiki? Here you go x
www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

[Kaytiee]

Also that Wikipedia page was written by United Nations office on drugs and crimes.

[VaIiant]

America still isn’t #1 on EITHER OF YOUR SOURCES. You’re making my brain cells commit suicide holy fuck

[Kaytiee]

Holy fuck you’re doing the same for me! I didn’t say it was number 1, but honey please America is above the uk ok? Get it x I mean when there’s two shootings in one day.. how can you even deny it.. sad.

[VaIiant]

You realize there’s also 200 articles saying that London has a higher murder rate then New York. At least did for a 4 month time span. You guys have bombings, knife attacks, thievery that the police can’t handle, etc

[Kaytiee]

We are talking about countries not cities but ok change the subject

[HumansExist]

I'm also from the UK and I don't deny that our murder rate is high... however, having said that -murder is against one specific person not a whole group of people (unlike mass shootings, and other acts of terror)... and no, I'm saying it as an "in the moment" way - as opposed to it taking place over a longer period of time.

[VaIiant]

@HumansExist Thanks, Im definitely not saying the US's murder rate isn't high- but guns aren't the issue. A lot of mass shootings, or would've been mass shootings, have been stopped by an armed citizen. We need gun SAFETY, not the total removal of guns.

[Flamdring]

@Kaytiee, it is not possible to argue with some US citizens because in most cases they have never been outside of their country and think their country is some kind of heaven on Earth. I lived in Scotland for many years and travelled to London which is supposed to be oh-so-dangerous pretty much every month, the last thing I would expect is some brain-dead guy with a semi-automatic gun shooting on the streets. London definitely is safer than most large cities in the world and I am glad that in the EU we do not have anything similar to the 2nd Amendment. Personally I do not have the need to keep an arsenal of weapons at home just in case my government decides to transform itself into a dictatorship. Besides, if that happens, they will likely control the army and no amount of guns owned by hillbillies will be able to fight against professionally trained troops.

On a side note, Switzerland and Serbia are among the top 5 counties when it comes to gun ownership per capita. However, it appears that due to generally more mentally stable people living there, they do not go or even feel the need to commit any murder sprees to prove their point.

[VaIiant]

@Flamdring LOL. I'm Costa Rican, how about you fact check before you assume? I've been to many many countries, and spent a good portion of my time growing up in Costa Rica. I'm not arguing America doesn't have a high murder rate - she's trying to argue its the #1 worst country for violence, which its not, and even her statistics show that.

[Flamdring]

@Valiant, the topic is not about you or where you are from, yet you were the one who started the whole "England which is part of the UK mind you has the highest murder rate" despite Kaytiee not mentioning any numbers or statistics. This caused the entire conversation to spiral down to who has more murders. The main topic is about the situation where US citizens feel the urge to own weapons at home for a reason that is sucked out of thin air in our day and age. There are quite a few US citizens who are brainwashed into believing that owning guns is good as people can protect themselves from anyone including their own government, and such reasoning is very flawed. Hence my comment about them. Imagine if we were allowed to walk around with swords in Europe, there would be a lot of people missing limbs or even heads after every Friday night out. For this very reason carrying even medium-sized knives and batons is forbidden by law in most countries on the planet.

Militias can be good in times of need, but they are usually quick to set up, so keeping them all the time is a waste of resources, both human and material. However, when millions of people have a serious fetish for weapons, it always leads to trouble. There are too many mentally unstable people around who will end up using any gun they can lay their hands on if they think they cannot win an argument via discussion. How would you check if a person is mentally stable? Some people snap only in certain situations and can be very decent fellows until then.

[Flamdring]

Not sure how they manage to do it in Serbia, in Switzerland men have to serve in the army and are allowed to keep their guns at home afterwards. However, they are not allowed to keep ammunition for the said guns. In the past Switzerland expected to quickly mobilise the entire adult male population in case it was attacked which has happened in the last 400 years or so. It is a great idea in a mountainous country like Switzerland which still has conscription. Still earlier this year Switzerland had a referendum where 64% of the population voted for stricter gun control laws in order to be in line with the EU; they are not part of the EU, but we share open borders and our economies are closely linked to each other. They took the decision to limit guns because they want to prevent murder sprees from ever occurring. A couple of years ago we had mass shootings in Paris where 130 people died after which many demanded even tighter gun controls. Expecting everyone to carry weapons and enter gun fights with crazed people would lead to even more bloodshed. Better to just ban them from private use as they bring nothing but trouble.

[Cherokeehp]

They’re already awake. They see what’s happening, but guns are profitable. Taking away guns means losing profits, so rather than actually enacting some gun control, they try to portray these mass shootings as unfortunate rare occurrences by mentally ill people. But, these occurrences aren’t rare and these mass shooters aren’t mentally ill or anything like that. These are just fucked up entitled white boys who have access to killing machines.

[Daniela1982]

I beg to differ. Anyone who kills a bunch of people instead of dealing with hardships like the rest of us do is not sane. Some want to commit suicide but haven't the guts so they kill others so they can commit suicide by cop. Others are plain copycats to these suicidal imbeciles. When they see someone else do it they think now is the time to do the same so at least their name will be known.

[Jackp0t777]

Anyone who does this kind of thing is mentally ill come on now. It is not an everyday thing people do.

[Cherokeehp]

@Jackp0t777 apparently it is I’mma everything because it’s happening back to back.

[Jackp0t777]

The probability of it happening is less chance than someone winning the lottery though. These guys may be entitled and rich but if they are loners and not around people long enough they start to see human beings differently like their lives are just meaningless. It takes a while to get to that point also depression could factor into it definitely someone completely sane would not do this.

[Daniela1982]

Well it has been the last couple of days.