Would stronger Gun Control prevent mass shootings in the United States?

Asked by: hillaryhamilton
  • We have to start somewhere

    The United States has endured too many mass shootings, our government must cease expressing their sympathies for the friends and families of those who were killed in shootings such as Sandy Hook, Parkland and Sante Fe High School and do its job. They also must find the strength to resist the NRA. Wal-Mart and Dick's Sporting Goods took steps to prevent future massacres, why can't our government? Trying is better than doing nothing.

  • Of course they do

    The statistics show that typically in countries with fewer guns there is less gun violence. Plus guns are actually really rubbish at fighting crime so the myth of a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun is just complete rubbish. In fact, the good guy with the gun is statistically more likely to shoot their child in the head (thats actually true - look it up). Guns are useless. Its common sense that guns existing mean that guns kill people. I just don't get how some nut job conservatives in the US find this so difficult. Im from europe. Let me tell America something: your level of guns is NOT NORMAL. Nowhere else is your level of guns and gun violence normal.

  • Yes if we ban it

    Without any access to guns except for robbing the military, I believe all gun-related death will disappear. If you are considering to kill a bunch of people one day, but the only way to do it is by breaking into the military and bring a rifle out with you not caught (chance you succeed is....You make an estimate yourself), a normal person will consider giving up the plan.

  • Yes it would

    Mass shooting has become too often a common phenomenon in USA. Other countries that has strict gun laws has very few mass shooting and a low homicide rate. USA stands on the top of all OECD countries in terms of firearms homicide and suicide.

    At least we should pass a law that ban assault weapon and universal background check on all guns sales.

    Assault weapon ban is necessary because assault weapon serve no purpose other than maximize death toll on people. Such weapon should only be used in military service but these weapons are not good for hunting, sports, or even self defense.

    Banning such weapon would at least save many lives as it would reduce the death toll from mass shooting. Mass shooting could still happen but it would be less deadlier with an handguns or shotgun than with an assault weapon with high capacity magazine or bump stock.

    Universal background check is the most effective approach. 99 % of experts agree and 90 % of american support such proposal.

    It's urgent necessary. Such proposal could stop mass shooting and eventually dramatically reduce gun death both homicide and suicide.

    In america, federal law does require back ground check on gun sales, but this does not extended to unlicense dealers,private gun show and even online retailers. This is often refered to gun show loopholes.

    If we close this gun show loopholes we could save lots of lives.

  • Stupid is as stupid does live by the gun die by the gun

    How truly stupid are people honestly? Desperate people do desperate things. 98% of crime is related with some sort of drug abuse or the lack of medicinal drugs.
    Psychopaths are born. Sociopaths are created and narcissists are self made. Give either 3 of these sort of people a weapon especially a gun and it's a crime.
    But you stupid Americans are to stupid to see that most Americans get off on walking over each other and instigate that same stupidity for the rest of the world.

    My guns bigger then your gun and my nuclear weapon is bigger and faster and I've got more then you do.

    Stupid is as stupid does. Live by stupidity and die from stupidity.

  • Yes, but with contingencies

    If more gun control would prevent just one potential mass shooter from carrying out an attack, than technically yes, gun control resulted in one less mass shooting. The argument that "criminals break the law anyway" is a terrible argument. With that logic, one could ask why there are any laws, because criminals don't follow the law, that's what makes them criminals. My biggest fear with gun control, is where does it stop. Current governments (including the US), and governments throughout time have a history of being given a yard and taking a mile. The reason why the constitution was written was so that the rights presented within it would stand the test of time. The protection against government tyranny is the whole purpose of the second amendment and the constitution as a whole. As well as being the reason the framers wanted to break from Britain. They felt a well-armed public would help keep the government in check, and prevent a tyrannical takeover. I think that right needs to be upheld and protected. So while yes, I think the mass shooting (going postal) numbers would decline, what would be next? Losing our freedom of speech, are right to fair trials? We already see in many European countries that people of being jailed for saying unpopular things. If we get rid of the second amendment, what is keeping us from getting rid of the first, third, fourth, etc. These mass shootings seem to have been on an upward trend since Columbine, I'm not sure if that's from admiration or the publicity those shooters received, or maybe something completely unrelated. Ultimately, I think culture needs to be addressed. As a white male from the suburbs, these "going postal shootings" seem to primarily be a problem with white males from the suburbs. Now that can't be coincidental? While the US has some of the most lax gun laws in the world, we currently have the strictest laws in our history, however these shootings seem to be growing exponentially. So clearly there is some type of sociological problem taking place primarily in the youth of white middle class Americans. I'm more interested with solving that problem. Banning all the guns may decrease mass shootings, but it doesn't solve the problem relating the impulse that a certain demographic in america seems to posses. While inner city, and minority-dominated schools have problems that need addressing, they are not even close to seeing the same level of rampage shootings experienced in middle-class, predominatly white, suburban schools.

  • Not one bit.

    These are people who have no issue breaking the law against murder so what makes you think they would obey a law about obtaining guns? Sure, some shooters got their guns legally because a background check was not the law but many others got them either because someone dropped the ball or they got them by illegal means. Thing is, if the place did a background check and they failed, they would just get guns by illegal means. Just look at all these kids that are in street gangs. By law, they are too young to own them yet we both know they are armed. Did gun laws stop any of them? Nope, not one bit.

  • Although I am a pro gun control supporter but i still believe there should be something done to prevent mass shooting

    I agree with the proposal of assault weapon ban and universal background check on gun sales. But the first thing we need to remind, that actually in many states there are already background check. But just the current system are so deeply flawed that many people can bypass it easily.

    Take an example of sutherland church massacre. The perpetrator does pass a background check but he still can obtain an AR-15 so easily ? Actually because of his previous domestic abuse conviction, he supposed to be blocked from owning an firearms. But because of the Air force failed to put his conviction into the system, he can bypass background check easily and obtain a gun.

    If such thing occur, background check would be meaningless . Mainly the authorities are often to blame on most event of mass shooting. If so they should be charged for negligent manslaughter and be held responsible.

    It's not only sutherland mass shooting but mass shooting in orlando nightclub and in Las Vegas.

    Omar Mateen was an islamic terrorist and he is a prohibited person. He should be on the blacklist but instead the authorities never investigated on him. Because of this, background check could not be perform effectively preventing him from owning an assault weapon.

    The same goes with Stepphen Paddock. He buy weapons from Nevada and California(which are states that have strict gun laws). But again, the authorties failed to report that he has severe mental illness.

    And lastly, Nicolas Cruz was another mental unstable that own a gun legally. Actually massacre in Stone Man Douglas high school could have been prevented if the authorities stop him before the shooting. He send a threat message to his classmates and his friend alert him to the authorities that he could potentially shoot em up in school. But why the authorites did nothing to intervene ? Because it's their failure to perform their job.

    Also Stone man douglas school has an armed guard, why didn't the armed guard did nothing to stop the shooting ?

    I fully support gun control but it's not enough. Mainly authorities should be outright be held responsible if they failed to perform their job. They have to power to do something but often they don't.

  • They disarm good people

    All gun restrictions do is they disarm good people. Murderers do not follow the law so they would commit shootings against innocent people who cannot defend themselves.

    I support arming every teacher with a gun. If they don't want the gun, they get fired. It sounds cruel, but it increases school protection.

    Posted by: asta

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.