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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In South Africa, The Highest Crime Rates, No Mass Shootings. Allot of terrorism. Thirst you need to apply for a Competency Certificate where your criminal record is checked and your family members give testimony including your wife that you are of good character.
You then need to complete training and a test of the firearm control law.
Once you passed then only you can apply for a licence.
Again your criminal record is checked, You fingerprints tested for crime and saved on the database. Then only you get a gun.
Then any domestic violence with a gun or the suspected violence is reported by spouse or you commit a crime, You can be assessed unfit to have a gun and your guns taken away from you.
Zero mass shootings and South Africa is a complete Racist Country.
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.
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.
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.
First off, 'Stronger Gun Control' could mean a lot of things ranging in severity. I'll just assume that this means making it significantly more difficult to obtain a fun, The ban of assault weapons, Limits in ammo capacity, And bans on gun additions, Such as suppressors, And the banning of other types of pistols and rifles that people say are dangerous. I say this because I often see, Or hear people use this as a baseline for gun control. If such a such a thing were to be passed, That would have minimal impact on school shootings. You see, What most people don't realize when they argue for gun control, And even banning guns entirely, Is that it even mostly harms law abiding citizens, Quite literally. Most criminals, In this case, Would resort to the black market, Stealing from gangs, Or smuggled weapons. In other words, Good people lose access to defensive weapons, While criminals get an advantage over law abiding citizens. Personally, I believe that one of the most effective way to stop a criminal with a gun, Is to have a good person with a gun (I should specify, I good person with a gun who knows how to shoot). Making guns more difficult to obtain could reduce the chance of a possibility like this. Here's a scenario that uses stronger control as it's 'center of the problem' you could say. It's a packed mall/store/school. A shooter who obtained a gun illegally enters the place, And starts shooting. Somebody calls a police, But it'll take at least 5 minutes for them to get there. They can use that time to kill even more people. The police get there, Take down the suspects. Unfortunately, They already killed 67 or so people. Here's the opposite scenario. It's a packed mall/store/school. A shooter who obtained a gun illegally enters the place, And starts shooting. A good person who is trained with a gun, And is also carrying a gun, Stands against the shooter, And takes a shot. Depending on the person and situation, The shooter could be shot dead, Which would be an improvement to the situation in comparison, Or the shooter could be immobilized, Fall and dropping the gun, Potentially from being shot in the leg. When the police arrive, Maybe only 20 people were shot due to early initiative.
No, Gun control is proven to never work, If anything it always backfires. I don't want any gun control is unconstitutional and if anything gun control gives more opportunity to government to have more control over people and whats stopping the government from making fascist decisions if we the people aren't armed.
Uh, I don't even have to make a supporting argument here. It's cut and dry. Well, I guess I need to explain it to non-gun owners. Okay, So here is the gist:
IF YOU BUY A GUN FROM A LEGAL DEALER, YOU MUST RUN A SERIES OF BACKGROUND CHECKS FROM THE FBI. ANY FELONS, VIOLENT MISDEMEANORS, OR OTHERWISE VIOLENT CRIME WILL INSTANTLY REVOKE YOUR ABILITY TO BUY A LEGAL FIREARM.
Is gun crime high in US? Yes. But is violent crime high in US? In relation with first-world countries, No. US has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the first world.
Then what is the deal? The problem is the amount of guns in the USA. USA has more guns than its own population. This gives the black market a great surplus to steal from. If guns get totally eradicated in the US, Criminals will find another way to kill - like knives.
One could argue that you cannot commit a mass shooting with a knife. Well yeah, Dummy. Knives can't shoot.
Seriously though, Mass shootings are going up (albeit slowly) whilst violent crime goes down. Mass shootings, Or violent crime in general, Are not a problem. What is a problem is the sensationalist media profiting off of tragedy.
Most gun crime is committed with an illegally acquired (Black Market) handgun. Many times when a mass shooting was committed, They were either stolen or legally acquired. However, The instances where they were legally acquired were because of people not doing their job. For instance, Nicholas Cruz. He was reported numerous times to the FBI and local police for his behavior (not gonna go far into detail). Needless to say, He did not get flagged in the system like he was supposed to. So, He legally acquired his guns.
On another point: the CDC estimates that between 500, 000 to 3, 000, 000 lives are saved annually in the US by guns. It is a large margin because it is harder to quantify as many events go unreported. How many are killed with guns? Well including suicides (which I would say is unfair) the number is around 30, 000. Limiting how many law-abiding citizens can get guns - or making gun ownership look immoral - will potentially lower the amount of lives saved.
I leave with this analogy: you are a sociopath. You want to kill as many as possible. Which room will you attack? Room A: 1% of population is armed, Or Room B: between 15-45% of the room is armed.
By a technical measure my answer would probably be yes. . . This would lower the amount of school shootings, But it's not in the way you think. The only way this would work is if you just banned all guns in general(which would result in an immediate civil war but we'll ignore that in this hypothetical. . . ) then their technically couldn't be any school shootings. . . BUT I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT! What makes a school shooting bad isn't the fact that a gun is used, It's that children/teachers are being murdered! And I don't think gun control would prevent that. First off, As terrorists have proven, You don't need a gun to murder dozens or thousands of people. Second off, Guns can obtained illegally(there are hundreds of millions in the US, There's no way that they would all disappear) if someone really wanted to shoot up a school they could do it. That's really the main point I'm making, The government isn't all powerful, If someone really wants something done they could do it! The real problem is the people, Not the tool. SO NOPE.
I do think stricter gun laws would help kids get their hands off guns. That being said, There is an issue with any kid who wants to get their hands on a gun. . . You can take away the guns but not the killer mindset which needs to be addressed. People who want to kill, Will kill. And that is the problem. That people want to kill others.
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.