- This topic has 124 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Do you actually think the solution to Mass Shootings is gun control?
How about Drugs? Do you think making things like Heroin illegal, solves its’ Abuse?!?Health
So are you arguing that because people abuse heroin anyway, we should make it regularly available no questions asked?
If not your comparison makes no sense
There should just be a five year application process including mandated community service for the more serious guns.
There are 2 parts to the solution, a making sure guns stay out of the wrong hands b making sure they stay in the good ppls hands
Will gun control stop all mass shootings?
Will making heroin illegal stop its abuse?The quick answer is no, BUT
Gun control will reduce the number of mass shootings. We saw that during the years we had an assault type weapon ban in place
Heroin is already illegal, so your question is flawed.
However, there are some people who might not try the illegal drug because of fear of the consequences of conviction of breaking the law.Why ask this only of Democrats/Libs.
I know both Republicans and Conservatives in favor of Gun Control (I live within a 20 minute ride of Sandy Hook).
I don’t personally know a single adult advocating that heroin be made legalUbiquitin, it’s not comparable because there is no acceptable use for heroin, whereas a lot of gun owners really like shooting them at inanimate objects.
Owners of certain kinds of guns should be required to wear pink tutus at all times.
rebyid
“Ubiquitin, it’s not comparable ”
1) correct, the comparison is absurd. I’m not comparing the two.Health was arguing (implying) that just like making heroin illegal doesnt stop its abuse, so to restricting guns wont stop their abuse .
to which I was pointing out, that the comparison makes no sense , that isnt a reason not to restrict them.2) If you want to interpret my comment as comparing gun control to drug regulation, don’t get too caught up in heroin. A better comparison would be to opiates, which do serve a legitimate purpose, and we regulate them. Of course people go around the law, but nobody I know has argued People abuse oxycontin anyway lets stop regulating it.
3) Who decides what is legitimate? I enjoy getting high after a long day at work who is to say that isn’t legitimate, It doesn’t affect you
I don’t think mass shootings (or any of the other violent crimes) will improve until humanity has improved their value of human life. You can outlaw anything and everything, make it harder to get guns or drugs etc but people who don’t value your life or even their own will find ways to be destructive.
It is true that there are less/no mass shootings in countries where there are strong gun laws, but I don’t know what other factors exist there. And I can only speak for here, where I am most familiar. I don’t think anything in the US as a whole will change until we figure out a way to change the way individuals live and view their lives and their worth. It has to change within the communities, the schools and move up from there.
Certain risks are acceptable, and others are not. For example, cliff diving is an activity that poses certain risks, and people should have the freedom to make that choice. Jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, while similar, is not acceptable.
Nothing will help the us is hopeless
Removing guns won’t solve the problem. Since the same way I can get drugs off the street guns are not any harder. Now If you were intent on killing people you will find a way to do it anyways…
Long story short though this is what one of the last mishnas in sota say about in the end of days you will not find refuge where ever you look and these mass shootings are a fulfillment of these eventsThe myth wasn’t that heroin isn’t safe, it was that the other opioids are.
Health
“What people, mainly Libs, fail to understand, that making something illegal doesn’t Stop it’s usage.”
While of course true that is an absurd reason to legalize itI ask you again, should unrestricted heroin be legal?
for that matter should drunk driving? murder?By legalizing guns u give the good guys a chance to fight back, and it creates a deterrent to shooters if they know everyone carries
This reminds me of a chapter in Rabbi Akiva Tatz’s book (not sure if World Mask or Thinking Jewish Teenager’s Guide to Life). He discusses how society requires each person to respect the others’ rights. When that breaks down, society cannot function. I may have a right to listen to music, but if I do so at max volume in middle of the night, that affects my neighbors’ rights to sleep. Common decency and mutual respect are necessary to have a happy functioning society. America used to be live-and-let-live. It seems those days are fading away.
I believe that today many are concerned with their “rights”, but ignore their own requirements to respect others’ rights as well. We see this with the “gender” language trying to police other people’s speech. The same is true for many talking points like “free education”. One’s right to free education will be funded by someone who previously worked hard and will now be taxed additionally for that right to be conveyed. Same for health care.
It’s easy to demand rights from others, but if it’s not a two-way street, society will break down.
whatsak
“By legalizing guns u give the good guys a chance to fight back, and it creates a deterrent to shooters if they know everyone carries”If that were true, states and counties with a higher rate of gun ownership would have a lower rate of gun crimes, yet the reverse is true.
Health,
“You can’t get it. Legality doesn’t make any difference.”So I have you right. You believe heroin, drunk driving and murder should be legal. correct?
Everyone understands that “free” education isn’t really free. So what? In the past, when a college degree wasn’t considered part of a basic education, a basic education was provided by the public schools. Proponents of “free” education argue that college is the new high school and should be treated as such.
While I don’t agree with everything health wrote I think his argument is this.
The starting point is that like it or notthe bill of rights gives the right to bear arms
People abuse that right by using guns to harm others
If we outlaw many types of guns, will that solve the problem?
Well drugs are a problem, and outlawing them didn’t really stop the scourge.
True, but many who would otherwise have fallen into drug use, didn’t, because they are illegal.
That’s also true but that part is not comparable. Because for people who follow the law, there are many laws outlawing murder and violence, so for them you don’t need to outlaw the actual gun. The question is will outlawing guns prevent those who don’t care about the rule of law from getting them.
To that the answer is, it doesn’t seem to prevent them from getting drugs. (why pick a specific illegal drug is beyond me. It should make no difference)
So you ask, so then just get rid of all laws ?
No. You are forgetting. The starting point is that the bill of rights gives you the right, whether you like that or not.
You want to negate that, you need to show probable benefitUbit, there is no point of legalizing heroin since legalizing it dosent help anyone, America would be safer with guns legal for ppl who went through the proper background checks et most ppl who want to shoot will get one either way, and the shootings you will have that would have not happened without them being legal are going to be less than the shootings that will be stopped by letting law abiding citizens have guns, someone who wants to make damage will, and making it illegal to buy guns is not getting to the root of the problem, should we make knives illegal? Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws and they have one of the highest shootings, the reason is because most of it us gang crime which don’t get they’re guns legally
KY
“If we outlaw many types of guns, will that solve the problem?
Well drugs are a problem, and outlawing them didn’t really stop the scourge”The mistake he (and you) are making
is defining “solve the problem” as “stop the scourge”No, restricting guns will not stop mass shootings, and making drugs illegal did not stop the problem of drugs.
but that is not a reason not to try to limit shootings.“No. You are forgetting. The starting point is that the bill of rights gives you the right, whether you like that or not.
You want to negate that, you need to show probable benefit”No, Im not forgetting. this is a discussion Ive had many times, and the same silly arguments are brought up over and over. Health did not mention the bill of rights, though I’m happy to discuss your new argument:
Though worth noting )again) that I’m not defining “probable benefit” as ending ALL shootings or even all mass shootings. – This is the critical mistake you are making in your post.
Falling back on the bill of rights, is silly (and is really reading a lot into health’s argument that isnt there) . The 2nd amendment isnt Torah misinai. It is man made, if it is stupid, we can (and should) get rid of it. (the idea that we are stuck with it “whether you like it or not” is not factual, look at slavery, prohibition). Furthermore the actual amendment’s meaning is debatable as It can (and has been) reinterpreted over the years thanks to the NRA lobbying hard for their more expansive interpretation which was not how it was historicly understood, and likely not how it was intended .
Moreover all agree that there are limits on the 2nd amendment. Do I have a right to buy a bomb? The 2nd amendment isnt limited to “guns” (arms are defined as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” In johnsohn’;s dictionary in 1755) Should bombs be regulated? that didnt stop the boston marathon bombing, 2016 NY pipe bombs, etc… So why limit the 2nd amendment if bomb attacks have occurred anyway?Ubiq
“The mistake he (and you) are making
is defining “solve the problem” as “stop the scourge””
Twice you pointed out that I am making a mistake, the second time even calling it a critical mistake.
However you accidentally neglected to enlighten us on the proper definition of stopping the problem, or otherwise enlightening us as to the details of the mistake.
I personally think it would further the argument if you were to do so, but that’s just my opinion.As to the bill of rights, of course it’s not Torah from Sinai and if they want to eliminate it, go right ahead. There is clear guidance as to how to do that legally. If they succeed, well then that right would be gone.
My argument is only that as long as they don’t do that, then it’s a proper fall back.I was not trying to claim that what I am saying is what health said.
I was only trying to give him proper credit as part of the argument is the same.
Call it my own if that makes it easier to respond to it.Right, there are limits, but just like we have the basic right to own knife, even though ppl can do terror with it, or a car, but we still have the right to own it, and if ppl do terror with it, or try to stop it, so to with guns, obviously u have to have proper background checks etc, but you cant take away the person’s right to defend himself, and you have to draw the line somewhere about what type of gun, ppl shouldn’t have assault rifles, since nobody needs that to defend themselves, u cant carry it either way.
Additionally there are so many guns circulating that making then illegal altogether wont stop gun crime
whatsok
“there is no point of legalizing heroin since legalizing it dosent help anyone, ”
says you! I think it helps me relax after a busy day at work.
” should we make knives illegal?
no. should we make grenades legal?“Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws and they have one of the highest shootings, the reason is because most of it us gang crime which don’t get they’re guns legally”
that doesnt mean we should make it easier for them. Chicago is a short drive from Indiana which has very lax gun laws (and as you should expect a higher rate of gun deaths than Illinois with their stricter gun laws)
“America would be safer with guns legal for ppl who went through the proper background checks ”
fine ill settle for universal background checksKY
to clarify what I meant by “Falling back on the bill of rights, is silly”If you are arguing that “guns are fun/useful /vital to our freedom/make me feel like a man ,or whatever and although as a result of that need for fun/useful /vital to our freedom/make me feel like a man -guns we have one of the highest rates of gun deaths, but that is a price I’m willing to pay for my fun/useful /vital to our freedom/make me feel like a man- gun” so much so that I’m glad its enshrined in the bill of rights making it difficult to regulate. ”
I would hear that argument. I disagree, but we can agree to disagree (except for the vital to our freedom argument that one is real nonsense) .
People bring up the absurd comparison to cars / knives, obviously a country with no cars has less car deaths, but we agree (I assume ) that the price of deaths related to cars is worth the benefits cars provide. We of course regulate cars heavily (far more than guns) but the benefit outweighs the price.
So be clear, on your position: mass shootings are a price you are willing to pay for the unrestricted right to have some fun at the range/feel like a man etc.but the argument that “Well yeah its pretty crazy that we have such lax gun laws which of course result in our high gun crime rate, but “like it or not the bill of rights gives the right to bear arms” ” is just bonkers, isn’t true nor logical.
What is the value of those lives that you are supposedly saving if you are willing to take away all of those people’s rights?
CTL there is already gun control. Is San Bernandino a gun friendly place? All these dem ideas do is give ordinary citizens less chances of protecting themselves. Cops don’t respond on time.
“However you accidentally neglected to enlighten us on the proper definition of stopping the problem”
Easy my friend.
Health and I were having a discussion you barged in, misinterpreted his post and responded with something tangentialy related .now make no mistake this is an open forum and it is ok for you to join our conversation, but you didn’t ask me for any ” proper definition of stopping the problem” so I’m not sure how I can accidentally neglect to enlighten you on something I would have no way of knowing you were wondering about.
That said, I am of course more than happy to enlighten you (as always) Our firearm death rate is 10.2 per 100,000 ppl. The next highest among high income countries is Finland with 3.6 If we can get ourselves down to Finland’s level and no longer be #1 (USA! USA! USA!) that would be a resounding success.
“I was not trying to claim that what I am saying is what health said…. ”
It sure sounded that way “While I don’t agree with everything health wrote I think his argument is this….”
“Call it my own if that makes it easier to respond to it.””
Yep like this I can address response to specific poster.“and if they want to eliminate it, go right ahead. There is clear guidance as to how to do that legally.”
Exactly! See my clarification which went up laterLakewhut
The OP did not ask if there was gun control, he asked for an opinion which I gave. I NEVER posted that there is not gun control.
Personally, I would like much more gun control. I believe in the 2nd Amendment and that any member of a well regulated (by the government) has the right to bear arms, just as law enforcement and the military. I am not in favor of private citizens owning guns. We don’t have to hunt for food, we go to the store and buy it.Police can and do respond in a timely manner. In Dayton it was less than 30 seconds, but the large load clip and assault style firearm is faster than that. No average citizen needs bump stocks, large load clips of that type of gun. Congress banned them before and should do it again.
Being anti-gun is not a Democrat idea. I belong to Citizens Against Gun Violence. We have as many Rs as Ds as members here in CT.
I would not feel any safer knowing you had a gun, I’d actually feel less safe.whats
“Right, there are limits, but just like we have the basic right to own knife, even though ppl can do terror with it, or a car, but we still have the right to own it, ”says who? what gives you a right to own a knife?
do I have a right to own atomic weapons? if not why not?“obviously u have to have proper background checks etc”
you keep saying this, but right now today 8/15/2019 the following states : AL, AK, AZ, AR FL, GA,, ID, IN, IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MO MT ME NH NC ND OH OK PA SC SD TN TX UT VA WV WI WY Do NOT require background checks for all gun sales (aka the “gun show loophole”)
note I’m not arguing to ban all guns , but we do need stricter regulation., which it seems like you agree.
KY
I neglected to put in the source of the statistics in my last comment :rin Grinshteyn, David Hemenway,
Violent Death Rates: The US Compared with Other High-income OECD Countries, 2010,
The American Journal of Medicine,
Volume 129, Issue 3,
2016,
Pages 266-273,RY
thats what I say when I’m waiting at a red light. no reason for me to stop because some light says so I have a right to drive! and even if people die as I hurtle through the light sacrificing their lives on the alter of freedom is a noble cause and they should be honored to do soI am not saying that criminals should be given access to guns, I think there should be strong background checks on all guns sold, but I do believe that the way america is now making guns legal for the average American will end up in a safer America. If guns are banned someone who gets one illegally can shoot without fear of being immediately shot by a civilian, on the other hand if guns are legal some mass shooters may have it easier (not like they would previously stopped) but I think that it would be safer the 2nd way
Ubiquitin, cars should be banned. Why should poor people have to cede the road to wealthy car owners?
The question to me seems absurd.
It is illegal to kill somebody.
It is really illegal.
In some states you get the death penalty for it.
Yet that does not seem to deter people with guns who from shooting others.
But if it is more illegal to buy guns then they will refrain from breaking the law since they were law abiding citizens in the first place.
Funny.
and that has really worked in Chicago, Baltimore and other places.
“cause we all know that nobody there has guns.whatsatome
“I think there should be strong background checks on all guns sold,”great, then you like me, are in favor of stricter gun regulation
RY
I assume your comment is on the wrong thread, I don’t understand what you are trying to say or its relevance hereUbiquitin, you compared cars to guns. But guns are nothing like cars, because someone else’s right to own a gun does not in any way impact your right not to own one.
RY
whatsak compared cars to guns “Right, there are limits, but just like we have the basic right to own knife, even though ppl can do terror with it, or a car, but we still have the right to own it, ” I called it an “absurd comparison to cars”
though I’m still not sure what you are saying “But guns are nothing like cars, because someone else’s right to own a gun does not in any way impact your right not to own one.” How is that different than a car? some people choose to exercise their “right” to own one, and that in no way impacts someone’s right not to own one.
I did compare gun regulation to driving regulains. I am an expert driver, I can perfectly time my way through a busy intersection. howver I give up this “right” for the greater good.
Again, as Ive pointed out if you think the “right” to own guns is worth the price of more dead people. thats fine. but be up front and say so “Yes we have more gun deaths than any other western country but thats the price we pay for the right to bear arms” I disagree with that weighing of values, but reasonable people can disagree.
what bugs me are the silly dishonest arguments, that we have to hear over and over
Ben L
“But if it is more illegal to buy guns then they will refrain from breaking the law ”
no of course not, but it would make it harder.should I be allowed to sell unregulated bombs in my shop bombs-r-us? After all murder is already illegal Yet that does not seem to deter people with bombs from bombing others.
But if it is more illegal to buy bombs then they will refrain from breaking the law since they were law abiding citizens in the first place.“and that has really worked in Chicago, Baltimore”
no its not perfect, and even the strictest regulation will not prevent all gun deaths. but at the end of the day wehther you look at states or (western) countries those whit h stricter gun laws have fewer gun deaths
Good guys with guns don’t hurt anybody. “Good guys” with cars make it virtually impossible to get around without a car.
Ubit, “Again, as Ive pointed out if you think the “right” to own guns is worth the price of more dead people. thats fine. but be up front and say so “Yes we have more gun deaths than any other western country but thats the price we pay for the right to bear arms” I disagree with that weighing of values, but reasonable people can disagree.”
You cant compare america to other countries, they are different, if they would make all guns illegal now, it wouldn’t save alot of lives, and the lives it may save would be saved by letting normal ppl have guns. From this it seems you are In favor of a complete gun ban, before u said only universal background checks (which i agree with).
In a place with no guns circulating what your saying might e correct, but the way america is now it wouldn’t help to make them illegal, (that is not getting Into the discussion of the right to own guns at the cost of gun crime)Guns don’t kill
People kill
I don’t believe making more guns illegal will not lower the death rate enough to make it worthwhile to take away people’s rights
Yes I believe that there is always a trade-off between freedom and injuring others
If we outlaw cars nobody would die in car accidents.
It’s always a balance.
Are laws perfect?
Not even close.
Like I said change the amendment and it’s OK.
But you can’t arbitrarily decide this law we ignore because we don’t like it.
Can I also choose which laws I don’t like?but at the end of the day wehther you look at states or (western) countries those whit h stricter gun laws have fewer gun deaths
Where are you getting this from? States with stricter gun laws don’t always have fewer gun deaths, unless you are counting suicides by gun. Most honest people will agree that the “national discussion” is not about suicide, rather about crime and violence by guns.
Additionally, comparing against other western countries is not a fair comparison, as none have a 2A, nor the deeply entrenched gun culture. There are over 300 million guns owned by US Citizens, 1.2 guns per legal citizen (wikipedia). No other country in the world comes close. If legal gun owners were the problem, you’d know about it.
RY
“Good guys with guns don’t hurt anybody”Except that sadly, that isnt true, but not really the point
““Good guys” with cars make it virtually impossible to get around without a car.”
I’m sorry I’m not sure what you are trying to say.whasak
you remind me of my patient who was taking colace and Imodium. He explained while few months ago I was constipated so I started taking colace then I became loose so I added Imodium.Ky
“Guns don’t kill”
Neither do bombs.“I don’t believe making more guns illegal will not lower the death rate enough to make it worthwhile to take away people’s rights”
Fair enough Kudos to you for your honesty . So stick to that. thats a respectable position, dont repeat silly talking points like “guns don’t killl people” when of course they do study after study after study shows more guns = more death.“If we outlaw cars nobody would die in car accidents.”
Yes! I said that earlier that is precisely MY point. I love it when we agree.“Like I said change the amendment and it’s OK.”
Yes you said that, and as I explained iit was stupid becasue . 1) Ok so lets change it are you with me? 2) we dont need to change it , we just need to interpret it the way it was interpreted for the first 230 years or so of its existence“”I don’t believe making more guns illegal will not lower the death rate enough to make it worthwhile to take away people’s rights””
Stick to this argument. Your other arguments “guns dont kill people” or our hands are tied by the 2nd amendment make are foolishKollelman
“Where are you getting this from? States with stricter gun laws don’t always have fewer gun deaths,”See State gun laws, gun ownership, and mass shootings in the US: cross sectional time series
BMJ 2019;364:l542(Though of course not “always” it is a trend)
“unless you are counting suicides by gun. Most honest people will agree that the “national discussion” is not about suicide”
The article I cited was about “mass shootings” not sucidie. Though I’m not quite sure why “most honest people” don’t care about suicide, but in an effort to be honest I’ll srt aside my concern for suicides and cite an article that isnt about suicides.
“Additionally, comparing against other western countries is not a fair comparison, as none have a 2A, nor the deeply entrenched gun culture. ”
The 2a has been addressed several times in this thread. Other ccountires didnt have a constitution spporting slavery nor a deeply entrenched slave cuture. That doesnt mean nothing shoudlve been done regarding slavery.
If you think slavery is just, say so. dont blame the constitution nor slave culture.
If you think gun ownership is worth the price we pay, say so, dont blame the Constitution or gun culture“There are over 300 million guns owned by US Citizens, 1.2 guns per legal citizen (wikipedia). No other country in the world comes close”
Ummmmm yeah thats kind of my point!
“If legal gun owners were the problem, you’d know about it.”
again, um yeah.
(though to be fair, Im not arguing to take away guns)Guns are legal, that horse is out of the barn. I would like stricter background checks and enforced red flag laws. Even with making bump stocks illegal it takes a decent machinist and a couple of hundred $$ to turn some long guns into fully auto. Lets limit those extended magazines to those who need it, LE and the military. I’d like to see the ATF (in plain clothes) walking the parking lots of gun shows and busting those who buy or sell weapons illegally. (Funding for the ATF was cut under the current administration). I would like to see some way of enforcing gun storage in homes so children can’t access their parents weapons and shoot themselves or others. (79 so far this year.) I don’t have solutions, just some common sense recommendations that have been made by others before me.
In 2017 one of the first things the current president did was sign a bill to make it easier for mentally ill people to own weapons. Now he’s saying the mass shooting problem is due to mentally ill people accessing weapons and we must return to the good old days of institutionalizing mentally ill. Never mind the fact that he has cut back on public resources for the mentally ill. Frankly I’d like to know where the president really stands on this issue since he’s contradicting himself. Trust me I was down right angry that Obama did little, but legislatively his hands are tied. At some point American needs to value human life more than it values weapon ownership.
And lets’ face it those good guys with a gun ( civilians) need to be putting in some serious range time if they are going to be of any help. Heck the recent mass shooting have shown us that even LE shoots the wrong people in active shooter situations.
Ubiquitin, people who carry guns may increase the risks of gun deaths, but when they carry the gun properly, nobody gets hurt. People who drive cars take up space on the road that cannot be used by anyone else. In addition to increasing risk of car deaths, they make it impossible for people to get around without a car by having exclusive use of the roads.
Rebyid
“they make it impossible for people to get around without a car by having exclusive use of the roads.”Totally true I spent all day yesterday staring out my window trying to figure out how I could possibly get to shul without a car.
AZ
” I would like stricter background checks and enforced red flag laws. ”
That i precisely my argument” I don’t have solutions, just some common sense recommendations that have been made by others before me”
whats striking is that even a majority of gun owners support many of those recommendations. but the NRA wont have it so we are stuckUbiq
I, like your claim, would also like to see strict checks. However id like them to be lifestyle checks rather than “background “checks.
As I said, guns don’t kill. ( Neither do bombs . Correct. )
Inanimate objects do nothing on their own.
Humans effect the activity.
People who spend the majority of their time watching videos that glorify murder and mayhem, spend time playing games glorifying the same, or spend their time surfing websites advocating maps mayhem, do not belong owning guns.
Unfortunately, that will never happen, as those are “protected lifestyle choices ”
Somehow that nebulous right is sacrosanct.
But restricting guns won’t really accomplish much.
Remember law enforcement needs to get it right 100% for these to be no mass murders. The mass murderer only needs to get it once.
The odds are always stacked against law enforcement.
Someone intent on killing will figure it out.
Will it stop some?
Sure.
Will it stop all?
Not unless it’s coupled with confiscation of all guns currently in circulation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.