Please, before getting angry with me, read carefully what I'm going to write. I completely understand that owning a firearm is part of American rights, that it's part of your culture, so I'm not talking about "banning it" but about having stricter regulations on the subject.
Because the USA has already had at least 565 shootings this year, and even if you take this figure on a per capita basis, it's still much higher than any other developed country. I find it disturbing that young people can get access to guns quite easily in the end.
Of course, the majority of Americans aren't mass murderers, but I think it's done too much damage to let things go on like this.
Updates
+1 y
@msc545 No it's not my definition, it's the definition of many people and common sense. The point is that it doesn't make sense to make comparisons with much less developed countries, which are rife with corruption, gang violence, and where weapons circulate easily. In any case, no matter how you look at it, the USA clearly has more shootings than countries with stricter legislation.
When will the US decide to regulate firearms more strictly?
The US government aren't afraid of legal gun ownership because the population is distracted by minutia. Any shiny object so they lose sight of what a Constitutional Republic is by saying loudly that they're a democracy.
The Founding Fathers were well educated and experienced. That's why the Oath of Allegiance is to the flag, not Congress, and the Republic it represents, not the "Democracy".
Democracy is the method used to create a tyranny. Freedom is stripped away one tiny piece at a time in the name of democracy until you're slaves.
They don't need to regulate guns. Guns are actually not the problem, they're a symptom. Guns used in mass shootings are almost always legally registered to the gunman or a member of their immediate family.
It's like in modern medicine - treat the symptoms, not the illness. Mass shootings are a symptom of modern America's sickness, not the sickness itself. It's easy to treat a symptom.
An example: I'm diabetic. My body is around 30% fat. This fat sticks to my internal organs and - among other things - prevents the insulin my pancreas makes getting into my blood and makes what does get out less effective. The illness (in my case, not all) is completely reversed by reducing my body fat percentage to around 6%. But the symptom - high levels of sugar in my blood - can be silenced by injecting insulin from outside.
If you're driving and the oil light comes on, you don't solve the issue by disconnecting the light.
"The People" have become lazy and allowed the Republic of the United States to become a democracy.
And for the record, I'm English. You only need to look at how weak my homeland is now compared to just 70 years ago to see where being more bothered about democracy than the Rule of Law gets you. When the Metropolitan Police describe veterans and their supporters remembering the dead of two World Wars who are determined not to let a violent mob disrupt the one ceremony of the year that honours them as "counter protesters" over the pro-Hamas immigrants determined to disrespect the lives that bought the freedom they have, it's a disgrace.
The Left has already done as much as they can within the confines of the law, but the right won't let them take things any further, because Conservative Americans can't survive without their daily dose or recreational shooting with firearms like the one pictured here. And just last night I was watching a video from an indepdent reporter, he was filming a debate between some Muslim teens and an LGBT supporter, one of the teens threw an egg at a house with a pride flag on it. The owner came out, and the other guy in the debate started shouting at everyone to get out, because the guy with the gun is mentally ill. As far as I know, people with mental illness aren't allowed to own guns in the U. S., but apparently not.
I don't mind someone owning a handgun for protection of sports shooting, or a rifle for something, but I see zero reason why someone would need to own a machine gun for recreation. A read a book! Go for a walk!
Like THIS for instance. These people are mental in my opinion. Anyone who's gonna blow something up for fun, is not right in the head.
I also think our culture needs to change. There's a problem in America about people feeling they need to shoot people to be feared, respected and defend their honor. People have become too cowardly to fist fight, so they just shoot you.
I remember a report on some Samoan gangsters. Their leader said, "On the islands, we solve our conflicts with our fists. The gangsters in the state, they don't wanna fist fight they just wanna shoot you, so we had to get guns too."
That Samoan guy pretty much summed up the problem in 10 seconds.
the second amendment is NOT for hunting "recreation". it is for killing humans which is sometimes needed. and the places with strictest gun laws cause a FALSE sense of security where criminals shoot MORE like chicago etc. a mall had a "ban on guns" but that did not stop a shooter bringing in one and shooting three people, the other GUN guy was the one who interrupted the crime, instead of WAITING for police so the criminal kills more and has time to flee.
@strateguy632 It was designed to defend against government tyranny. Where was the good guy with a gun in Maine? You literally just said killing humans is sometimes needed, so wouldn't you want to give him time to kill more people and flee? And exactly, it wasn't designed for recreational shooting so why do Americans use it for recreational shooting? Ah, read a book! Go for a walk!
It won't. Every time there's a mass shooting people become more and more desensitised, it's going to take something horrific to change attitudes. No one dares ask if a right is actually right because of fear of being seen as unamerican.
The truth is America needs to consign it's constitution to the archives and create laws for the modern era based on logic and reason and not the wishes of a handful of long dead rich guys.
And when do you decide it's time to shoot politicians? Who makes that call? How many crazies so far have tried to take out one because they disagree about their policies and think they're gonna be a hero?
@strateguy632 You wouldn't. The last time a President tried to remind the American population it was a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy was November 1963. It didn't go well for him.
Look at your history and you'll find almost every President since JFK has behaved increasingly like King George and your gun owners have done nothing. Like frogs in water when the heat is increased incrementally.
I was blind to it growing up in the UK. Moving to South Africa 20 years ago was a rude awakening. There's something very positive about a more feral environment politically. You can see the corruption more clearly.
I'm currently in the process of getting a firearms license here. It's harder than the USA but a lot easier than England.
But if America thinks they'd revolt against a tyrannical government they should look at who's running things. Government by, of and for "the People"? That's a joke.
Exactly. The Constitution was written 250 years ago, where the ammendment served a different purpose and context. We didn't have machine guns back then and no one thought people will some day mass shoot or practice recreational shooting. So I agree with Poppy that the Constitution needs to be updated to reflect the modern times. It's the exact same thing with the Quran.
Maybe when all the mayors families get shot up.. until then it will never happen because guns don't affect the super rich it is only regular people who get murdered...
I have never seen anyone who writes in this topic make very specific recommendations and then analyze past statistics to try to determine how many shootings could have been prevented if those laws had been in effect earlier.
I've also never seen anyone anlyze how many innocent victims would have been killed if they, or a bystander, had not been in possession of a firearm for self-defense.
Well, there are several countries with strict gun regulations and guess what? They have fewer mass shootings than the USA. And gun ownership has never prevented mass murder - the US has the highest rate of mass shootings of any developed country.
But I didn't claim that gun ownership would prevent MASS shootings. Let's review the statement I made: "I've also never seen anyone anlyze how many innocent victims would have been killed if they, or a bystander, had not been in possession of a firearm for self-defense."
It's up to you to prove that gun ownership reduces shootings. I'm simply noting that, despite gun ownership, the USA has the highest rate of shootings among developed countries. So the question is, if firearms are so effective in "protecting" oneself or preventing shootings, why is it that the USA has the highest rate of shootings among developed countries? 🤔
And guess what, if you relate this rate of shootings to the number of the population, the usa always wins.
Okay, so what works in the vast majority of countries that have restricted access to firearms, wouldn't work in the USA, yes of course, it's American exceptionalism, isn't it? 😂
to julie, content fewer" that does not refer to the RATE and most countries have fewer people too. and countries without guns still have stabbings for example west bank (Israel by Jordan river)
We're not trying to reduce all the shootings though, only the bad ones. If there is an interaction that results in someone getting shot in the face it counts as a shooting, yes? Well if you approach my elderly mother with a knife and you get shot in the face for it then that's going to count as a shooting statistic. Otherwise it would have been a knifing statistic. Guess which one doesn't bother me, or most Americans. Waiting 40 minutes for a Bobby to show up and give them a stern talking to doesn't quite cut it.
Nice try, but we're talking about mass shootings, and a mass shootings is defined as a shooting with at least four victims, wounded or dead.
And in this sense, take the number you want, whether by number of inhabitants or global, the United States among the developed countries, and at the head of the bill.
You only want to talk about mass shootings because that is what the MSM has told you is important, and you want to be a good sheep and follow their talking points. Repeating the dogma which has been poured into your brain is not a substitute for an intelligent discussion. "read carefully what I'm going to write" but I won't really respond to anything you say.
by the way, Brazil is a developed country. Deeaye again. Deeaye again.
No, Brazil is an emerging country, but it's not even one of the world's top ten economic powers. What's more, it's not difficult to buy firearms in Brazil.
Therefore, no country in the world's top 10 surpasses the United States. Try Again 😉
Try again? So you can simply insist that whatever country I name is not a developed country? And ALL you care about is the rate of MASS shootings in DEVELOPED countries (as defined by you) so you can make an argument for restricting the right to possess firearms. I've had enough of your nonsense, and, no, be saying goodbye doesn't mean you "won" the argument. It means I;m not going to waste any more time on you.
Haha, you're just lacking arguments. Furthermore, even if Brazil was one of the most developed countries, you were able to cite only one country, all the others were largely underdeveloped countries, and once again, Brazil does not have a large gun restrictions. I can name you all the most developed countries and none reach the level of the USA.
I just read through this and it's an interesting argument. I think you both need to define exactly what you mean by a developed country because when you've gotten down to this point you really need to start defining your terms.
And even if you do define your terms adequately by whatever criteria you can both agree on, you then need to specify what development as you've defined. It has to do with the amount of shootings that occur and why it's important or not. I hate to be so picky but it's an interesting argument and you both can refine it better and you have so far no offense intended.
@msc545 Actually, I think the argument of comparing the US to other "developed" nations, whatever that means, is pointless. If we can reduce gun shootings without doing violence to the Second Amendment, we should do so - regardless of how we compare to other develop nations. The problem for me is that people offer suggestions in the most general terms (which almost always infringe upon the Second Amendment) without any real analysis of HOW that would reduce shootings, and whether there would be more victims because people didn't have guns to defend themselves. It feels like the arguments are just aimed at trying to erode Second Amendment rights by whatever means possible. And the arguments quickly degenerate to emotional appeals and shaming rather than logical arguments.
A developed country is a country that has one of the largest economies in the world, with modern infrastructure, a high literacy rate and life expectancy.
You can include Brazil if you want, it doesn't really change my argument because quite simply access to firearms in Brazil is not difficult. Bolsonaro, as a good populist, had made access to firearms even easier. Lula came back to this, but there is still a lot of progress to be made on it.
And what's more, among all the countries he cited, only Brazil could be considered part of a "developed country", which suffices to say is more than insufficient to prove his argument.
I can tell you several countries (part of the top 10 world economies) which have stricter regulations on firearms than the USA, and which have fewer killings than the USA.
So the point that guns prevent shooting simply doesn't hold water. On the other hand, countries where access to firearms was stricter demonstrated that they had much, much fewer shooting than in the USA.
I don't want to deny Americans access to firearms, but I think a little stricter regulation on this subject would be welcome.
At a minimum, you would need to show that "development", however you define it, is statistically a reasonable predictor of the incidence of mass shootings. You cannot just implicitly assert that it somehow is.
Predicting gun violence and mass shootings turns out to be very complex. Here is a really good article discussing some research into this which states in part:
"Persons who committed public mass shootings in the U. S. over the last half century were commonly troubled by personal trauma before their shooting incidents, nearly always in a state of crisis at the time, and, in most cases, engaged in leaking their plans before opening fire. Most were insiders of a targeted institution, such as an employee or student. Except for young school shooters who stole the guns from family members, most used legally obtained handguns in those shootings."
If people don't have access to buying guns, they are very likely to make them (people do this in the US - it can be done with a computer and a 3D printer and publicly available software) or find other means of killing people.
can we talk abou the fact that every single mass shooter recently got on SSRI`s or recently got off SSRI´s.
Im excluding gang shootings in my definition of mass shooters here. by the way that is one of the ways they make it look so scary besides faking a few (Sandy and Las Vegas).
Sure. Every mass shooter also probably had milk as a child and completed at least some school and perhaps drove a car other vehicle. We should definitely figure out how all of these activities and events influenced them to become mass shooters.
I'm sort of getting tired of repeating this but I will. Correlation is not causation. Unless you can demonstrate causation, the whole exercise is a waste of time.
Also, you seem to be implying that the shooting's in Las Vegas were fake. I have a close friend and she was there with her husband. Her husband was shot in the back by the fake guy with a fake bullet and somehow wound up with a real wound which I saw. It didn't look exactly fake to me, but then we have to figure out whether or not the shooter was taking SSRIs for some reason? You do realize I guess that this is just another conspiracy theory and none of it makes any sense at all as usual.
@msc545 Look up side effects of SSRI medication. Hell look up side effects of any Psychiatric drug. They are all insanely bad. Look up people going of SSRI and how they are addicted to it. Look up how many people use them daily. 20 ish percent of us citizen. I want you to ask yourself if that much money MAYBE influences peps and politicians to not come forward with the truth.
Its just like with cigarettes. Why is that so hard to understand.
Also the whole basis of SSRI got dismantelt. There is no connection between low serotonin levels and depression. The whole premise behind SSRI got disproven.
I do think that people got shot in vegas. But i dont buy the official narrative. Lone gunman. 17 Guns in one room. I dont buy it. Saying something is a conspiracy theory doenst disprove anything,
Im not saying i proved anything either. Im saying u should look into the official narrative ( no broken windows during police raid) and see for yourself that its ludicrous.
@YAsQuen I am very aware of the side effects of SSRIs because many of my patients take or have taken them. Which side effect is it that you think causes people who take them to shoot others? The only side effects I am aware of are that they very often don't work or have any effect at all and they cost a lot.
2nd, currently we are in the top 10 countries for gun violence in the world. If you take out NYC, Chicago, Houston, Baltimore, Oakland and StLouis we’d be 190th.
3rd, the media supports the left and pushes false narratives every minute.
4th, letting violent repeat offenders go free is allowing this (supported by leftist criminal prosecutors that won’t follow through) and democratic run communities that supported the “no bail” changes to law.
we are witnessing the end of this representative republic. We will have a civil war before the end of this decade.
The more likely outcome is that regulation and prohibition of firearms by the central government will be overturned and abolished being that it is unconstitutional. For to have gun regulation in America would be a direct violation of the Constitution of the United States' Bill of Rights. Thus the USA as a country would have to no longer exist and our lands would need to be usurped by a foreign invading army for firearms to ever be regulated in a way that communists like you dream of. Get over it, you can't take us in a fight...
"When will the US decide to regulate firearms more strictly?"
There is no reason to. That's the TL:DR version. For the long version, let's say I've spent literally hundreds of hours researching this topic, and there is no reason to. How many hours have you researched and think there is a reason for more regulation?
What makes you think that they aren't regulated? Murder's illegal in every state and territory; these people clearly aren't held back from their actions simply by something being illegal.
What percentage of gun crimes (or even just mass shootings, to eliminate any possibility of dubiousness in whether a shooting is justified) here do you think are made with legally owned guns?
I think there should be more regulations then there currently is. A friend and I were able to go to a gun market with just our ids (no background check) and he was able to buy a gun.
Honestly some people have unhealthy obsessions with owning guns and sometimes kids end up getting those guns and doing bad things with them.
but those ID causes responsibility. we know who owns them and they get deterred from using it wrongly and the fact is most gun owners do not use the gun for crimes. whether holding up cars or shooting to take a wallet etc.
No. Soon everyone will have guns. They will take their guns to work. Their kids will have guns too, and take their guns with them to school. There will always be "collateral damage" (ie., people getting shot here and there) but what the hell, that's life!
We all know that dead people arw a small price to pay for having our guns!
In every one of those mass shootings, the shooter broke laws. I'm not sure you can come up with a law that a mass shooter won't break. Even if the shooter doesn't die/kill themselves in the process, what difference does it make if they break a dozen more laws. They get the death penalty or life in prison either way.
The second amendment is about self defense for law abiding citizens but a lot of the statistics don't reveal how easy it is to buy guns illegally off the black market where there is malice and intent on severely injuring and or killing for example a drug deal gone bad or gang activity
places do regulate strictly and the laws do not help because CRIMINALS ignore laws if a guy ignores murder laws only an idiot would think they will obey a gun law. so stop trying to change the constitution document.
26.4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
What is not reported is the majority of shootings are from gang members shooting unregistered firearms. If the courts would convict these felons and put them in jail the body count would drop considerably.
565 shootings and the year isn't even over. It's just sad. People putting ThEir RiGhT tO oWn GuNs before people's lives is absolutely appealing. How about banning the automatics? :))
to ogname MOST gun owners are not doing the crimes. so no conflict with lives. the CAUSE of deaths is criminals. and THAT IS appealing we mean appalling. that is just as silly as saying "we need abortion for danger to mother health" as if that justified many more when no danger to health similarly here due to 500 criminals take more than 500 guns. that is insane.
I hate saying this, and do not want this to be what gets us to change, but of it affects a prominent political figure we might all of a sudden see change.
No it's not my definition, it's the definition of many people and common sense.
The point is that it doesn't make sense to make comparisons with much less developed countries, which are rife with corruption, gang violence, and where weapons circulate easily.
In any case, no matter how you look at it, the USA clearly has more shootings than countries with stricter legislation.
More restrictions do nothing. A lot of drugs are regulated/restricted heavily and look how that goes. Laws don't stop criminals obviously.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
Never… this is the fabric of America.. stay in debt, work for a company, spend all your money, and divide and kill each other until for the powerful to benefit. It will never change here
I don't think you should be owning machine guns for recreation shooting. I know machine guns are illegal, but I'm extremely ignorant when it comes to guns, so to me anything that fires multiple rounds at once is a "machine gun."
they do know it is millions, and they want to take away all starting with rapid fire to "automatic" reload which is all. but then BEFORE police arrive nobody can stop the shooter. and the shooter "finishing his mass murder and leaving" did not really interrupt the crime. one website said "not only by shooting the shooter because the shooter leaving is also stopping" what good does that do when he was not interrupted?
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
