Orlando Shooting

[Cool Girl]

So, we had a big tragedy happen in the US, the Orlando Shooting, which is also known as the biggest mass shooting in US History! My heart goes out to all the victims of that shooting. May they rest in peace.

But, I want to talk more in-depth. This got me thinking about gun control. Now, many people have said to abolish the second amendment, but I say a different approach. There's no way that someone who is mentally unstable should be allowed to have an AK-47! There needs to be some kind of control, like a small weapon, but not like an assault rifle! I don't know....

What do you guys think of this?

[Strider]

This is a divisive topic.

I just watched the Simpsons episode where Homer gets a gun to protect his family. Interesting coincidence

The reasons for gun restriction and the reasons for allowing ownership are all valid.

I think the main arguments for low restriction gun ownership are protecting the people you care about, dissuading government control, and because of the constitution.

Some people have said that the constitution shouldn't apply because it is outdated, or just plain wrong. I don't agree that it is wrong. The constitution gives a completely valid reason for owning a firearm: a well regulated militia. Switzerland is one of the only countries today with a militia, and it has gone well for them. They have one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, and one of the lowest gun-related crime rates worldwide. The government issues weapons, and trains people in their use. This works because everyone has weapons.

However, I don't think this would work in the United States. For one, we're not a very cohesive population. There are too many difference that cause hatred. Switzerland is a small enough country that they can be considered a nation-state (when the nation(culture, language, religion) coincides with the boundaries of the country), and there is less tension.

I don't know how well a non lethal self-defense weapon would be. I think fear of death is the big thing that could prevent other violent crimes. We already have things like tazers and these:http://gizmodo.com/this-clip-on-handgun-attachment-makes-bullets-non-letha-1730039256 but not much has changed.

I don't know what a solution could be, but these are my thoughts.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Strider

[Shamitako]

...I think that gun control comes up a good bit and always results in bad things

But also I do think that gun control should be a bit stricter. We oughtn't be openly giving a gun to someone someone with a criminal record or who suffers from a mental condition that could make them a danger to themselves or others

However, I don't believe more gun control will actually stop mass shootings like this. If someone is that determined to kill people, they'll find a way to get around the law. That's when you want someone else there who's been trained with a gun to be there and shoot them first. I really wish that, rather than being fearful and paranoid, people would learn to respect firearms and use them properly

Coincidentally, I just fell in love with Y.V. so guns have been on the mind~

[Lits]

People always find a way to get guns, no matter what, there was a shooting in germany a day or so ago, outside frankfurt, and I hear gun control there is very strict. Really, we can have stricter gun control, but people WILL always find a way to make/buy an illegal weapon. If you have the knowledge and tools you can rig just about any rifle class weapon to full auto. Gun Control won't stop the violence, just merely slow it down. Guns should really only be used for protecting your family from danger, which is why I own 3 different handguns, 2 revolvers and a semi-auto (.22, .38, and a 9mm)

[Dhanush D Bhatt]

It would be better if the gun control laws were much stricter. If they were, it would make it much harder for people, especially kids, to get a hold of guns. You'd say that they can get it from the black market or that there are ways of getting guns, but you'd have to realise that because getting guns normally is much harder now, buying a gun from elsewhere will be much more expensive. Not everyone would be able to. This would greatly reduce the crimes. There's really no need to have guns for self defence. If no one has guns to use, you don't need guns to defend

[Ironbound]

To put it bluntly, hard-case criminals will always be able to get guns, but the cost and difficulty with which they can get them is made much steeper if the US has very strict gun laws. At least it'll prevent the random Joe from being able to get hold of a gun and start blazing away. The current logic devolves into an internal arms race among the law abiding citizens: "they have guns so we should get them too to defend ourselves", and that just means more guns everywhere and more risk involved if any one is misused.

The fewer weapons available the better, at least in my view. It is an outsider's one, I agree.

[Halloween]

I don't know why people keep using Switzerland as an example. The majority of all men in Switzerland between the ages of 20 and 30 undergo military training, and as a part of that, weapons training. They also get their own guns during this, which is why the ownership rate is so high – the guns can get transferred to their own private usage after the training regimen is over, if they sign a permit. However, no one except 2000 specialist military members are allowed to keep ammunition at home in Switzerland, so it's pretty hard to go out shoot people anyway.

I agree with what most people here are saying – aside from where hunting is necessary, we do not need guns for private use. In the US, I don't think it's a valid plan to overnight take away people's guns, so baby steps – starting with background checks, gun transport laws, and stricter restrictions on what guns people can buy, and going from there.

I'm mostly concerned about what makes people think they need guns in the first place – if half the nation honestly feels like they need a firearm or their family might be killed, then maybe that's worth looking at.

[Dhanush D Bhatt]

Of course, stricter gun laws won't mean taking away all guns ever owned over night. I was thinking maybe having to re-apply for a gun license, where the required background checks and whether or not the person has a valid claim to own a gun is looked into. Anyone without the new license would be asked to forfeit their guns or be liable to legal punishment.

[IntSys]

Would having stronger police patrol work? Like, situate more armed police/guards at crowded areas, such as stadiums, schools and clubs.

[Ironbound]

I highly doubt it. America has, at least in recent memory, too many incidents of cops going trigger-happy as well, especially against people of other races. Why have more gun-toting cops when instead you can start implementing a proper prevention? One which is long overdue, I might add.

[Shad_]

Actually U.S.A. banned some chocolate eggs (wich the main site of production is built in Italy) because they thought the presents inside them were too dangerous for the kids (since they're located inside small plastic eggs and could accidentally be swallowed)

I don't know if that's true or not actually, but what is strange is that Americans can have guns but they can't have this kind of chocolate eggs because they're "dangerous"?

[Red_Chaos]

The only way to prevent mass murders is to destroy the main problem, humans.

[Strider]

I only brought up Switzerland to show that there are cases where widespread gun ownership works reasonable well. I agree that this is not a valid reason for indiscriminate gun ownership in the United States.

I think stricter control is necessary, seeing as one argument is that we don't think laws will stop people from obtaining guns, so we shouldn't have them. I don't think that the belief that a law won't work should be enough to stop people and governments from attempting it.

As an aside, at the moment, background checks are required. However, these are very basic: http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/19/news/guns-background-checks/

I don't know how this can be remedied. A psychological examination? Or just better investigative processes?

[Halloween]

Of course, stricter gun laws won't mean taking away all guns ever owned over night. I was thinking maybe having to re-apply for a gun license, where the required background checks and whether or not the person has a valid claim to own a gun is looked into. Anyone without the new license would be asked to forfeit their guns or be liable to legal punishment.

Yeah, true. it's a little more complicated than that though – the states has a roughly 43% gun ownership rate (per household), and 319 million people (which u indians think is nothing, i know). The current gun registration records are not fully digitalized, many are damaged due to age and whatnot, and most of the owner oppose a registration law – I think it's a legit law suggestion, but just in name, actual implementation would be hard. but it'd good for the police to be able to go in and take the guns of people they suspect of criminal activity.

I highly doubt it. America has, at least in recent memory, too many incidents of cops going trigger-happy as well, especially against people of other races. Why have more gun-toting cops when instead you can start implementing a proper prevention? One which is long overdue, I might add.

I think the class gaps are what they need to work on. The people that buy guns and massacre people are usually teenage to mid-age middleclass white guys, but the ones people feel like they need protection against is a poor, undereducated, mostly black/latino working class. And like, of course it's like this – that's what a system of institutional racism and a life of poverty, lacking education and an economic system built to make rich people richer leads to.

Actually U.S.A. banned some chocolate eggs (wich the main site of production is built in Italy) because they thought the presents inside them were too dangerous for the kids (since they're located inside small plastic eggs and could accidentally be swallowed)

I don't know if that's true or not actually, but what is strange is that Americans can have guns but they can't have this kind of chocolate eggs because they're "dangerous"?

i mean, putting them side-by-side it looks ridiculous, but seriously, if there is a choking hazard to those chocolate eggs, I don't see why they shouldn't be banned. "We allow guns, so everything less dangerous than that should be allowed to"?

I only brought up Switzerland to show that there are cases where widespread gun ownership works reasonable well. I agree that this is not a valid reason for indiscriminate gun ownership in the United States.

I think stricter control is necessary, seeing as one argument is that we don't think laws will stop people from obtaining guns, so we shouldn't have them. I don't think that the belief that a law won't work should be enough to stop people and governments from attempting it.

As an aside, at the moment, background checks are required. However, these are very basic: http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/19/news/guns-background-checks/

I don't know how this can be remedied. A psychological examination? Or just better investigative processes?

not allowing people on terrorist watchlist to buy guns would be a nice starting point, as well as a higher minimum age and yes, i'd like there to be a mental evaluation involved. not only to prevent gun violence, but also to prevent gun suicide. and get rid of the gun show loophole.

[Deleted User]

I don't know why people keep using Switzerland as an example. The majority of all men in Switzerland between the ages of 20 and 30 undergo military training, and as a part of that, weapons training. They also get their own guns during this, which is why the ownership rate is so high – the guns can get transferred to their own private usage after the training regimen is over, if they sign a permit. However, no one except 2000 specialist military members are allowed to keep ammunition at home in Switzerland, so it's pretty hard to go out shoot people anyway.

I agree with what most people here are saying – aside from where hunting is necessary, we do not need guns for private use. In the US, I don't think it's a valid plan to overnight take away people's guns, so baby steps – starting with background checks, gun transport laws, and stricter restrictions on what guns people can buy, and going from there.

I'm mostly concerned about what makes people think they need guns in the first place – if half the nation honestly feels like they need a firearm or their family might be killed, then maybe that's worth looking at.

The whole notion of weapons training is relatively overblown in the united states. Only about 1.5% of deaths by firearms are accidental, and even with training, many are still likely to happen. Nearly 2/3 of all deaths by handguns are suicides. The issues we have are cultural. Many homicides are committed by those often in lower social standing who fall in with the wrong crowd. Honestly, if we want to reduce crime, we have to make other alternatives more feasible and better discourage some of the cultural notions that lead to individuals being corrupted by a life of crime. There will still be shooting no matter what we do, but couple that with better mental status evaluation would be the most efficient way to fix the issue.

Aside from hunting we don't USUALLY need guns for private use. I own a gun myself, and I hope I never have to use it outside of the range. However, if someone goes somewhere and threatens other innocent people or god forbid starts taking shots at them or me or someone I care about, you'd better believe I won't hesitate to take action. "It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."

I've been a proponent of the legal owner of the gun receiving any punishment that the user gets when committing heinous crimes with it. (Death penalty excluded, I am anti death penalty as a whole regardless). The biggest issue is not the 'Gun Show loophole' but rather the underground black market for weapons purported by organized crime.

Why do I need a firearm? To make sure that I'm not defenseless against a criminal who doesn't care about gun laws.

-----

Also Cool Girl, I know that's what the media wants you to think, but no this is not the most deadly mass shooting in US History.

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/the-worst-mass-shooting-in-us-history-was-not-in-orlando

But this kind of categorization is very debatable and has been called out for “whitewashing” history. If we mean murder perpetrated by guns, the worst “mass shooting” in American history was the “Wounded Knee Massacre” in South Dakota, when 150-300 Native Americans were gunned down by the U.S. army in South Dakota.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

In the Waco Siege a fire broke out, but the shooting went on for 3 hours.

Notice something about both of the incidents? The U.S. Army? The FBI? Both official organizations. They're just trying to sweep it under the rug.

[Truly Deceptive]

To put it bluntly, hard-case criminals will always be able to get guns, but the cost and difficulty with which they can get them is made much steeper if the US has very strict gun laws. At least it'll prevent the random Joe from being able to get hold of a gun and start blazing away. The current logic devolves into an internal arms race among the law abiding citizens: "they have guns so we should get them too to defend ourselves", and that just means more guns everywhere and more risk involved if any one is misused.

The fewer weapons available the better, at least in my view. It is an outsider's one, I agree.

Gun use ought to be either commonplace or prohibited (except, of course, among police departments). If someone with a gun was nearby and willing and able to intervene against a criminal like that, they'd stop them before their slaughter gets (more) out of hand.

The only real question that should be examined is whether or not we who live in the US trust our neighbors enough to do that (to have the selflessness and grit to stop a shooting spree).

Would having stronger police patrol work? Like, situate more armed police/guards at crowded areas, such as stadiums, schools and clubs.

Wish I could upvote this (the problem this presents, of course, is the fact that some people'll argue that it's an invasion of privacy).

[Deleted User]

You can't count on the police as is, even doubling their patrol I feel is relatively insufficient. Google turns this up:

The average school shooting lasts only 12.5 minutes. According to Homeland Security statistics, the average police response time is 18 minutes. The only true defense against this threat is to reduce law enforcement response time to these incidents.

I'm sure that you can replace school with 'X' and still be fairly spot on.

[Truly Deceptive]

It'd at least discourage mass shootings.

[Deleted User]

It'd at least discourage mass shootings.

That's a pretty idealistic thought. Anyone who is dead set on mass shootings is going to do them regardlessly.

[Alex]

Silly question, but how often does citizen ownership of guns prevent crimes? Having a gun to feel protected and using them to protect yourself are kind of very different and not everyone can be up to the later, or even do it efficiently, I guess. In any case, just a random musing.

[Deleted User]

Silly question, but how often does citizen ownership of guns prevent crimes? Having a gun to feel protected and using them to protect yourself are kind of very different and not everyone can be up to the later, or even do it efficiently, I guess. In any case, just a random musing.

More often that you'd think. The problem is, you don't hear about these incidents on the news because it doesn't get a chance to escalate. Gun ownership helps prevent robberies quite often. It very well may be different in other countries, but a majority of the citizens with higher crime rate such as Detroit, Chicago, New Orleans for example all have very strict gun laws. Now, this also comes back to what I said before, a lot of it is the culture and economic status of the individuals committing the crimes in these cities.

Look at it this way. Countries with worse economic status, more people living in poverty almost always have higher crime. As is comparable to why cities have higher crime rates than more suburban areas. With that said, law abiding citizens should have a right to protect themselves from the people who are committing said crimes. The trade off of banning guns in the United States would likely be, yes a small portion of criminals would no longer be able to commit the crimes they intended, but at the same time, the average Joe who is just living his day to day life is powerless to defend himself from the majority of criminals who will not be stopped by such laws.

[Truly Deceptive]

That's a pretty idealistic thought. Anyone who is dead set on mass shootings is going to do them regardlessly.

Wouldn't it make getting away with starting a mass shooting that much more difficult? I don't expect anything to change for the better–ever–but he was at least trying to imagine a solution.

[Deleted User]

Wouldn't it make getting away with starting a mass shooting that much more difficult? I don't expect anything to change for the better–ever–but he was at least trying to imagine a solution.

Hardly anyone gets away with a mass shooting. And even if they do it's a few days tops. I'm glad you're thinking proactively, but if you ask me, we have to fix the problem at the roots. To do that, we must first recognize what the issue really is, however that's rather debatable.