Another School Shooting, this time in Florida

[excalibur]

Taking away the tools does not do anything. You have to deescalate the people themselves. When you try to prevent people from having a certain thing, the crime market to acquire said thing skyrockets and creates an even worse situation. Without changing the hearts of people, what you intend to happen does not work the way you want it to.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

This isn't an either-or situation. We can limit access to highly dangerous weapons while also working to address root causes of the culture of violence.

Do you honestly advocate that no substance, no material, or no device should be banned/regulated/restricted, or am I reading your argument wrong?

[Admiral X]

The weapons you consider to be highly dangerous are actually the most ideal for personal defense.

[excalibur]

The weapons you consider to be highly dangerous are actually the most ideal for personal defense.

Exactly. Just because you don't use them, doesn't mean others, like me, shouldn't have them.

This isn't an either-or situation. We can limit access to highly dangerous weapons while also working to address root causes of the culture of violence.

Do you honestly advocate that no substance, no material, or no device should be banned/regulated/restricted, or am I reading your argument wrong?

If you want me to be extremely honest. Yes, I don't believe actual restrictions will truly work without education and good morals. For those without a good moral compass, there will always be those who will combat them or in the case of drugs, some would argue to just let them go about their business as long as they aren't directly harming others like with alcohol. We established a rule of law not because we believe the laws themselves will prevent others from doing things but because it establishes a community that enforces the rule of law through simple principles. You can't not kill a man randomly because it's illegal, but because it's "wrong". Having a law doesn't truly reinforces the point, but just states the obvious. Harsh consequences only work for those who are afraid of them but not because a law says there will be consequences.


What you and others propose of limiting access to certain things while attempting to address root causes never really happens. An example is the war on drugs that's been going on for decades. Current solutions have only came on when it is very clear the actual war has had little to no effect and in fact made it worse. Any country that supported an all right gun ban has not done a single thing to curb violence and people even admit that as long as people are being killed with guns, they are fine with other methods that have been used.


Consider this. According to the FBI and the CDC, the use of firearms in a self defense act is estimate between 500,000 incidents at least to 3 million times per year in America


To focus on what you are considering "dangerous weapons" all rifles combined, including like AR-15s and other rifles, have actually killed less people than incidents that have used knives.

The problem is, what you and others considered "highly dangerous weapons" is warped by what the media and certain politicians tell you, who ironically are protected 24/7 by people armed with said "highly dangerous weapons". So unless you live in a mansion, protected by armed guards all the time, you cannot compare the opinions of the politicians and certain media figures on what we can and cannot have in terms of weapons. Even certain politicians have unrestricted concealed weapons permit in states where the process of getting one is extremely hard.

And if you continue to say a ban will actually magically make all guns disappear, consider the countless guns already in circulation and guns that are on the illegal black market. It would be impossible to limit guns on a massive scale across America when the politics of each cities is vastly different vs state level vs the federal level.

And even if guns magically disappeared, there have been plenty of incidents across the world where guns have been built illegally. There has already been several incidents where people have used manufactured guns in a crime here in America.

I am plenty of my friends and family own and have used these so called "highly dangerous weapons" and you don't see us shooting up a school or a concert. That's because a tiny, tiny portion of the population actually commits these horrible crime and a gun ban or restriction affects the millions of law abiding gun owners like myself and does nothing to stop criminals or the crazies from committing evil. It just makes it easier for them because now countless people are defenseless to fight back.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Okay. That statement is helpful in informing my understand of your perspective. No regulation on guns, no regulation on poisons, on acids, or on nukes.

I ran across some article that is highly relevant to this topic, but I can't remember where it was, or the author or title, so I'm kinda stewing in my own frustration.

I will say though...it isn't all or nothing? We can REGULATE guns without totally BANNING guns. We can make it harder for known threats to get guns, impose some waiting periods, and crack down on the gun show loophole. Are you, as a responsible gun owner, terribly worried about longer waiting periods or more background checks or more limited access to fresh ammo?

[excalibur]

Okay. That statement is helpful in informing my understand of your perspective. No regulation on guns, no regulation on poisons, on acids, or on nukes.

I ran across some article that is highly relevant to this topic, but I can't remember where it was, or the author or title, so I'm kinda stewing in my own frustration.

I will say though...it isn't all or nothing? We can REGULATE guns without totally BANNING guns. We can make it harder for known threats to get guns, impose some waiting periods, and crack down on the gun show loophole.

And again, I'm telling you. It does not work the way you think. There is no such thing as the gun show loophole. They go through the same background checks as gun stores. Waiting periods have done more harm since victims become victims while waiting to get their guns. Most of the incidents that the news sensationalize happen so rarely, yet are covered 100% of the time over the countless other crimes that happen ever minute. California and New York has those exact waiting periods and bans on certain firearms that you wanted but crime still happens. Hell, in LA alone, the "highly dangerous weapons" you think are actually coming from south of the border, but they aren't used in school shootings, as long as shootings don't involve children, the cartels can own southern California if they want. And before you blame neighboring states, it isn't like Indiana is the wild west considering how close it is to Chicago, who are quick to blame their gun crimes on Indiana.

Going back to other countries, the UK saw a spike in gun crimes immediately following their 1997 handgun ban and even to this day have begun regulating ingredients that makes acid but that has not stopped London from being the acid attack capital of the world vs where none of that has happened anywhere in America.


What you don't understand is regulating people's choices does nothing to prevent them from making said choices, but what should be done is informing of consequences, small or dire, can happen if they are reckless about their choices. If not, then proper defense against people, who make those bad choices is more appropriate, not set yourself up to be defenseless when you chose to obey the law but they won't.

The problem it becomes all or nothing for your side as well. When restriction on certain guns don't work, they push it more and they push it further until there will be no more guns. 10 rounds only? 7 rounds? 5? A certain size? Longer Waits? The envelop keeps getting pushed every time it's proven to do nothing

[ORCACommander]

actually ammo access is a problem. there are certain calibers in my area that are actually in short supply and are more often than not sold out.

Still gonna say no to background checks. One of the big reasons why we have repeat criminals in this country? its because we strip them of their rights and companies will not hire them. So what do they do? go back to illegal activity.

Mental health checks sound noble and while i have sympathy of for the field of psychology for trying to establish itself as a proper science, it still has no credibility in my eyes. its largely opinion, guess work and egotism, not to mention the civil rights violations psych wards have gotten away with

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Yeah I'm against the "shootings are caused by mental illness" school of thought, no question there.

Excalibur, I am at least considering what you say. I can understand your frustration with "as long as it's not school shootings, there isn't a problem" attitudes. But don't you think that, if we CAN prevent school shootings with harsher gun laws, that's worth it? Don't you think that we have an obligation to provide stronger protections for children trying to learn? Or is this whole argument not really germane because of your position on what is and isn't effective?

[Admiral X]

Incidentally, just this last weekend I bought a Turkish Mauser that was date-stamped 1943. I still had to fill out the background check form, and the guy I bought it from still ran my information before he would accept payment. This was exactly the same as the time I bought a cheap .22 from Scheels, and the time I bought my Tokarev from a mom & pop dealer that ran his business out of the shop building on his farm. So what "loophole" are you talking about, exactly?

[excalibur]

Yeah I'm against the "shootings are caused by mental illness" school of thought, no question there.

Excalibur, I am at least considering what you say. I can understand your frustration with "as long as it's not school shootings, there isn't a problem" attitudes. But don't you think that, if we CAN prevent school shootings with harsher gun laws, that's worth it? Don't you think that we have an obligation to provide stronger protections for children trying to learn? Or is this whole argument not really germane because of your position on what is and isn't effective?

You and I both agree children do need protection, but our methods are different and I strongly disagree your train of thought.

I am not saying that mass shootings at schools are irrelevant or they are not as important vs other larger issues that happen significantly more often, but considering that your idea, like others, to stop these rare enough incidents can have a vast effects on everyone else negatively is what I am disagreeing with. And also that they don't work because it's been proven already. The big example is Columbine and it happened during the Clinton Assault Weapons ban where kids illegally bought weapons they shouldn't have and they didn't use "Assault Weapons". This incident alone proves a ban not only didn't affect these kids, it also proved the Gun Free Zone Act had absolutely no effect at all. Consider that all mass shootings happen in places where guns are not allowed, schools, etc. A pattern tells us that the killers pick places where their victims are defenseless children.