Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mass shooting in Ohio, US

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Postgenic View Post
    Banning them isn't the solution; ffs alcohol was banned during Prohibition and yet many people still acquired it illegally, and many drugs like meth, heroin and cocaine are illegal at the moment and yet that also hasn't stopped people from obtaining them via nefarious ways. The only thing that banning guns would do is increase arms trafficking.
    If banning them isn't the solution, then why do countries with tough gun laws not have this issue? Much stricter gun control is the start of the process, but there's a much more substantial cultural change that needs to happen - in the US, you are basically born in the belief that you are entitled to a gun because the constitution tells you you can have one. It is obscene.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Postgenic View Post
      Banning them isn't the solution; ffs alcohol was banned during Prohibition and yet many people still acquired it illegally, and many drugs like meth, heroin and cocaine are illegal at the moment and yet that also hasn't stopped people from obtaining them via nefarious ways. The only thing that banning guns would do is increase arms trafficking.
      Not the old fashioned call to anarchy in response to reasonable gun law reform, that's so played out. You do realize that this same logic could be applied to all laws. LOL

      I assume your next argument is that you need a personal arsenal to protect against tyranny.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by BehindBreakaway View Post
        Yes but surely if the guns are harder to obtain, there's less chance of your average Joe crazy being able to get one. Guns aren't easy to just illegally obtain. There would 100% be less mass shootings if guns where banned. Its worked in other places around the world. Where I live it's seen as being paramilitary lead which leads people to think that you can get guns whenever. It doesn't work like that. Yes. Illegally gun trading may go up, but imo the pros far, far outweigh the cons.
        This. Everyone always brings up Australia's response to the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre with the law changes and Gun amnesty as this paragon example of shutting down gun violence.

        That's not to say we now NEVER have any instances of gun crime (Eg every now and again you'll hear reports of a gang related drive by shooting, and we had some shocking things like the 2014 Lindt Cafe Siege and I recall there was a instance of a student shooting a police officer dead or something a couple years ago) but thankfully it hasn't reached the senseless number of lives lost as a direct result of gun violence again (IIRC 35 were killed at Port Arthur).

        That and probably helped by the fact guns aren't as easily obtainable or without the overall mindset of the 2nd amendment/'If the victims had a gun' mentality that's so rife in the US, that has made the situation just so out of hand.
        Last edited by Affillate; Sun August 11th, 2019, 06:35.
        UKMIXtapes Vol.3 | ROUND 9!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Postgenic View Post
          Banning them isn't the solution; ffs alcohol was banned during Prohibition and yet many people still acquired it illegally, and many drugs like meth, heroin and cocaine are illegal at the moment and yet that also hasn't stopped people from obtaining them via nefarious ways. The only thing that banning guns would do is increase arms trafficking.
          The only reason why arms trafficking would increase in theory is because of the dumb reasoning that having a gun should be a 'right', the whole mindset is effed up to the core. I bet the police would knock you down in the US if you walk into a random supermarket with a massive knive or sword, yet you can get your cornflakes alongside a gun. No citizen should have acces to a gun, semi or automatic weapon, only trained professionals. Also the whole 'I need to protect myself' rhetoric is ridiculous, because in the end that would mean that if everyone has an atomic bomb in their backyard, you also need to get one to 'protect' your home, while all you do is destroy the world if you all push that button. I know the last is a ridiculous example, but it is the kind of logic that is getting used by a lot of people. Same for the dumb excuse that people need a semi-automatic weapon to 'hunt', while if you would hunt a deer with that kind of weapon, there would be nothing left but small pieces.

          The mindset needs to change, the guns need to be banned and anyone who eventually gets acces to a gun needs to be screened and checked plenty of times a year. People can mentally change in a couple of months because of tragic events etc. It will not completely prevent these kind of things happening but it would fore sure decrease the numbers A LOT.

          Comment


          • #35
            A request to anyone opposing stricter gun laws:
            1) Please stop saying that it won’t prevent mass shootings, because there are ways to illegally obtain guns. Stopping mass shootings from happening is impossible, nobody is claiming otherwise. The attempt is to drastically reduce them, because the numbers in the US are beyond ridiculous at this point. Stricter gun laws are a viable way to this. If you think otherwise you obviously also think traffic signs are redundant, because some people frequently ignore them, banks don’t need alarm systems because robberies still happen and fences aren’t needed because they can be climbed or torn down.
            The more difficult something is, the more risk, planning and effort it takes to actually pull it off, the less people do it. That is a simple fact. But as long as an everyday person can buy semi-automatic rifles (which were developed for one single purpose, can you guess which one that is?) mass shootings will remain an everyday problem.

            2) Please give me a list of examples where a mass shooting was stopped in its tracks by „a good guy with a gun“ (not counting police officers who were called to the scene) I‘m honestly curious how many times that worked, as it is such a frequently used argument by the NRA and its fans.

            Comment

            Working...
            X