America - Gun Control

[earl]

It would have certainly been less deadly. He needed multiple weapons because the fire rate was so high the barrels were over heating.

If semi automatics alone had been been banned his rate of fire would have been significantly lower. Depending how much practice he had as low as 3 or 4 shots per minute.

Having tighter gun registration would have helped police identify some one possibly slipping over the edge. 33 purchases of semi automatic weapons in a 12 month period is extraordinary by any standard.

This guy was hellbent on killing as many as possible, as quickly as possible. Guns were his apparatus. If he had no access to them, he may well have used bombs, gas etc…

It is not about HOW he did it. It is about WHY he did it.

How many gassings and bombings have their been in Western countries by people not in terror groups? Of course it's about how he did it. To say otherwise is an attempt to deflect attention. Guns are simple to use, easy to use and easy to obtain without drawing attention to yourself. And you can practice at legal shooting ranges and you have a pretty certain exit strategy. The other methods you suggest do not meet that criteria. Plus I'm sure the Rambo effect and the feeling of power is a factor.
Killing people en masse is obviously a factor but the benefits guns offer cannot be dismissed.

You are wrong. Discovering why people feel the need in that country to mass kill their fellow civilians is far more important than banning the instrument they use to conduct the atrocities.

I understand that you seriously believe what you are stating but you have it completely wrong. The issue is crazy people with access to guns. Guns also have some perverse influence on these people. If the guns didn't exist this stuff wouldn't happen.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

It would have certainly been less deadly. He needed multiple weapons because the fire rate was so high the barrels were over heating.

If semi automatics alone had been been banned his rate of fire would have been significantly lower. Depending how much practice he had as low as 3 or 4 shots per minute.

Having tighter gun registration would have helped police identify some one possibly slipping over the edge. 33 purchases of semi automatic weapons in a 12 month period is extraordinary by any standard.

This guy was hellbent on killing as many as possible, as quickly as possible. Guns were his apparatus. If he had no access to them, he may well have used bombs, gas etc…

It is not about HOW he did it. It is about WHY he did it.

How many gassings and bombings have their been in Western countries by people not in terror groups? Of course it's about how he did it. To say otherwise is an attempt to deflect attention. Guns are simple to use, easy to use and easy to obtain without drawing attention to yourself. And you can practice at legal shooting ranges and you have a pretty certain exit strategy. The other methods you suggest do not meet that criteria. Plus I'm sure the Rambo effect and the feeling of power is a factor.
Killing people en masse is obviously a factor but the benefits guns offer cannot be dismissed.

You are wrong. Discovering why people feel the need in that country to mass kill their fellow civilians is far more important than banning the instrument they use to conduct the atrocities.

Because some people are crazy. It's not rocket science.

 

[Munk]

This guy was hellbent on killing as many as possible, as quickly as possible. Guns were his apparatus. If he had no access to them, he may well have used bombs, gas etc…

It is not about HOW he did it. It is about WHY he did it.

He tried to use his guns to create a bomb….he failed.

Oh and good luck buying components for a bomb. Oddly enough access to even the basic chemicals is highly regulated.

Has been since a little incident in Oklahoma City,

Pretty sure the Boston bombing happened post Oklahoma City.
Its a fallacy to claim that all mass killings are gun related.
Boston bombers, Nice truck attacker, London knife wielders, Nigerian machete attackers, Japanese machete attackers, Chinese long knife attackers, 911 terrorist attackers etc etc etc… and they are only off the top of my head. Guns stopped these people with the exception of the 911 mongrels and its no coincidence it turned out the worst. Had there been air marshals carrying on each flight, 911 likely doesn't occur.

 

[cochise]

It would have certainly been less deadly. He needed multiple weapons because the fire rate was so high the barrels were over heating.

If semi automatics alone had been been banned his rate of fire would have been significantly lower. Depending how much practice he had as low as 3 or 4 shots per minute.

Having tighter gun registration would have helped police identify some one possibly slipping over the edge. 33 purchases of semi automatic weapons in a 12 month period is extraordinary by any standard.

This guy was hellbent on killing as many as possible, as quickly as possible. Guns were his apparatus. If he had no access to them, he may well have used bombs, gas etc…

It is not about HOW he did it. It is about WHY he did it.

How many gassings and bombings have their been in Western countries by people not in terror groups? Of course it's about how he did it. To say otherwise is an attempt to deflect attention. Guns are simple to use, easy to use and easy to obtain without drawing attention to yourself. And you can practice at legal shooting ranges and you have a pretty certain exit strategy. The other methods you suggest do not meet that criteria. Plus I'm sure the Rambo effect and the feeling of power is a factor.
Killing people en masse is obviously a factor but the benefits guns offer cannot be dismissed.

You are wrong. Discovering why people feel the need in that country to mass kill their fellow civilians is far more important than banning the instrument they use to conduct the atrocities.

You only want to deal with half the problem.

 

[Yossarian]

This guy was hellbent on killing as many as possible, as quickly as possible. Guns were his apparatus. If he had no access to them, he may well have used bombs, gas etc…

It is not about HOW he did it. It is about WHY he did it.

He tried to use his guns to create a bomb….he failed.

Oh and good luck buying components for a bomb. Oddly enough access to even the basic chemicals is highly regulated.

Has been since a little incident in Oklahoma City,

Pretty sure the Boston bombing happened post Oklahoma City.
Its a fallacy to claim that all mass killings are gun related.
Boston bombers, Nice truck attacker, London knife wielders, Nigerian machete attackers, Japanese machete attackers, Chinese long knife attackers, 911 terrorist attackers etc etc etc… and they are only off the top of my head. Guns stopped these people with the exception of the 911 mongrels and its no coincidence it turned out the worst. Had there been air marshals carrying on each flight, 911 likely doesn't occur.

Nearly all the incidents you refer to were terror attacks committed by groups. Attacks where a single person acting without help kills multiple people are rare without guns. Will someone who is hell bent on killing people find a way? Sure probably. But it's hard to stab 50+ people and you've got a much better chance of getting away. Plus you'd need to be close to people obviously.

Nobody I've seen disagrees that law enforcement shouldn't be armed. How many of the attacks you refer to were stopped by non law enforcement people?

 

[Yossarian]

It would have certainly been less deadly. He needed multiple weapons because the fire rate was so high the barrels were over heating.

If semi automatics alone had been been banned his rate of fire would have been significantly lower. Depending how much practice he had as low as 3 or 4 shots per minute.

Having tighter gun registration would have helped police identify some one possibly slipping over the edge. 33 purchases of semi automatic weapons in a 12 month period is extraordinary by any standard.

This guy was hellbent on killing as many as possible, as quickly as possible. Guns were his apparatus. If he had no access to them, he may well have used bombs, gas etc…

It is not about HOW he did it. It is about WHY he did it.

How many gassings and bombings have their been in Western countries by people not in terror groups? Of course it's about how he did it. To say otherwise is an attempt to deflect attention. Guns are simple to use, easy to use and easy to obtain without drawing attention to yourself. And you can practice at legal shooting ranges and you have a pretty certain exit strategy. The other methods you suggest do not meet that criteria. Plus I'm sure the Rambo effect and the feeling of power is a factor.
Killing people en masse is obviously a factor but the benefits guns offer cannot be dismissed.

You are wrong. Discovering why people feel the need in that country to mass kill their fellow civilians is far more important than banning the instrument they use to conduct the atrocities.

Oh I'm wrong. You've decided have you? I didn't say finding out why nutters go nuts is unimportant. I'm saying limiting the ability of said people to kill scores is pretty damn important too. Now how precisely would you have stopped Las Vegas by some process of analysis? Guy had no mental health presentations, no criminal record, no red flags. Wouldn't have appeared on anyone's radar. The only viable way of stopping him was stopping him owning guns. He was a professional gambler. He had no need to own all those guns.

 

[Geo]

Maybe buying 33 Semi Autos and Ammo in a 12 month period might have sent up a Red Flag or 2 in a Country with some sort of Gun Control..not America tho I dunno.. 😕

 

[swag_tiger]

Maybe buying 33 Semi Autos and Ammo in a 12 month period might have sent up a Red Flag or 2 in a Country with some sort of Gun Control..not America tho I dunno.. 😕

I think buying any military style gun would raise a flag.

 

[earl]

The thing with the pro-gun proponents is that you can't logically argue with them. If there were no guns the massacre wouldn't have occurred. If the guns that nutter could have bought were more reasonable then the massacre wouldn't have been as bad.

They don't though want to face that issue so they come up with crazy side points ala we get comments about multiple gunmen and questions about why people do this as if you can talk sense to them and get them to change.

 

[voice_of_reason]

As with most topics - gun control, gay marriage, religion, politics etc - it's virtually pointless having the 'discussion' because the people most likely to enter the debate are already totally convinced either for or against the topic. You don't change the fanatics, you can only hope the government of the time has the sense to act for the benefit of the greater good.
Given the current leadership of the US, it's hard to see that being the case.

 

[jadtiger]

The thing with the pro-gun proponents is that you can't logically argue with them. If there were no guns the massacre wouldn't have occurred. If the guns that nutter could have bought were more reasonable then the massacre wouldn't have been as bad.

They don't though want to face that issue so they come up with crazy side points ala we get comments about multiple gunmen and questions about why people do this as if you can talk sense to them and get them to change.

Unfortunately Earl you cant argue logic with people who have a closed mind and the gun lobby are the perfect example of that.No reasoned arguement will work because they will throw constantly try to sidetrack the debate and refuse to acknowledge that guns are any part of the problem

 

[Munk]

The thing with the pro-gun proponents is that you can't logically argue with them. If there were no guns the massacre wouldn't have occurred. If the guns that nutter could have bought were more reasonable then the massacre wouldn't have been as bad.

They don't though want to face that issue so they come up with crazy side points ala we get comments about multiple gunmen and questions about why people do this as if you can talk sense to them and get them to change.

I dont know you, only what you have posted in this thread so I'll be honest. I dont think you could argue in a logical way with anyone. You wear your heart on your sleeve and thats cool but please - dont try and use words such as rational or logical when your every post is dripping with emotion and totaly devoid of facts. Just telling it as I see it.

 

[Munk]

The thing with the pro-gun proponents is that you can't logically argue with them. If there were no guns the massacre wouldn't have occurred. If the guns that nutter could have bought were more reasonable then the massacre wouldn't have been as bad.

They don't though want to face that issue so they come up with crazy side points ala we get comments about multiple gunmen and questions about why people do this as if you can talk sense to them and get them to change.

Unfortunately Earl you cant argue logic with people who have a closed mind and the gun lobby are the perfect example of that.No reasoned arguement will work because they will throw constantly try to sidetrack the debate and refuse to acknowledge that guns are any part of the problem

I see no evidence of that. Gun lobbyists are presenting plenty of alternatives to blanket bans. It is the anti brigade, as it is with any issue, that is laser beam narrow minded.

 

[Munk]

As with most topics - gun control, gay marriage, religion, politics etc - it's virtually pointless having the 'discussion' because the people most likely to enter the debate are already totally convinced either for or against the topic. You don't change the fanatics, you can only hope the government of the time has the sense to act for the benefit of the greater good.
Given the current leadership of the US, it's hard to see that being the case.

So what is the greater good? Disarming hundreds of millions of people? Good luck with that.

 

[Munk]

This guy was hellbent on killing as many as possible, as quickly as possible. Guns were his apparatus. If he had no access to them, he may well have used bombs, gas etc…

It is not about HOW he did it. It is about WHY he did it.

How many gassings and bombings have their been in Western countries by people not in terror groups? Of course it's about how he did it. To say otherwise is an attempt to deflect attention. Guns are simple to use, easy to use and easy to obtain without drawing attention to yourself. And you can practice at legal shooting ranges and you have a pretty certain exit strategy. The other methods you suggest do not meet that criteria. Plus I'm sure the Rambo effect and the feeling of power is a factor.
Killing people en masse is obviously a factor but the benefits guns offer cannot be dismissed.

You are wrong. Discovering why people feel the need in that country to mass kill their fellow civilians is far more important than banning the instrument they use to conduct the atrocities.

Because some people are crazy. It's not rocket science.

This guy wasn't deemed crazy, try again.
However just to humor your claim, there is plenty of research declaring that there is only a relative link between mental illness and violence. It is in no way as cut and dried as that.
Id be looking more at the American mentality towards wanting to be famous.

 

[Tim Sheens]

As with most topics - gun control, gay marriage, religion, politics etc - it's virtually pointless having the 'discussion' because the people most likely to enter the debate are already totally convinced either for or against the topic. You don't change the fanatics, you can only hope the government of the time has the sense to act for the benefit of the greater good.
Given the current leadership of the US, it's hard to see that being the case.

So what is the greater good? Disarming hundreds of millions of people? Good luck with that.

May I suggest that you move to the safe stateside environment you espouse amongst your gun loving mates and leave us to cower in fear without them.

 

[Munk]

As with most topics - gun control, gay marriage, religion, politics etc - it's virtually pointless having the 'discussion' because the people most likely to enter the debate are already totally convinced either for or against the topic. You don't change the fanatics, you can only hope the government of the time has the sense to act for the benefit of the greater good.
Given the current leadership of the US, it's hard to see that being the case.

So what is the greater good? Disarming hundreds of millions of people? Good luck with that.

May I suggest that you move to the safe stateside environment you espouse amongst your gun loving mates and leave us to cower in fear without them.

I lived there for years. Wonderful country.
May i suggest that you are not without them over here, in fact you are surrounded by them. Guess who has them…

 

[cochise]

As with most topics - gun control, gay marriage, religion, politics etc - it's virtually pointless having the 'discussion' because the people most likely to enter the debate are already totally convinced either for or against the topic. You don't change the fanatics, you can only hope the government of the time has the sense to act for the benefit of the greater good.
Given the current leadership of the US, it's hard to see that being the case.

So what is the greater good? Disarming hundreds of millions of people? Good luck with that.

May I suggest that you move to the safe stateside environment you espouse amongst your gun loving mates and leave us to cower in fear without them.

I lived there for years. Wonderful country.
May i suggest that you are not without them over here, in fact you are surrounded by them. Guess who has them…

We don't have the high powered assault rifles to the same extend that the U.S.does, guess what else we don't have?

 

[Munk]

So what is the greater good? Disarming hundreds of millions of people? Good luck with that.

May I suggest that you move to the safe stateside environment you espouse amongst your gun loving mates and leave us to cower in fear without them.

I lived there for years. Wonderful country.
May i suggest that you are not without them over here, in fact you are surrounded by them. Guess who has them…

We don't have the high powered assault rifles to the same extend that the U.S.does, guess what else we don't have?

You dont require those rifles to kill. Just ask the gangs in Sydney and Melbourne.

 

[MG1962]

Pretty sure the Boston bombing happened post Oklahoma City.
Its a fallacy to claim that all mass killings are gun related.
Boston bombers, Nice truck attacker, London knife wielders, Nigerian machete attackers, Japanese machete attackers, Chinese long knife attackers, 911 terrorist attackers etc etc etc… and they are only off the top of my head. Guns stopped these people with the exception of the 911 mongrels and its no coincidence it turned out the worst. Had there been air marshals carrying on each flight, 911 likely doesn't occur.

And in each incident legislation was rushed through to mitigate chances of similar attack occurring again. But with major gun incidents in the US, not so much.