This is the part of the thread where I ask, “So you’ve never heard of Los Angeles?” and you look at me blankly, as though I had asked you how to do a rectopotry of the Gortrund generator in a 1968 artron fluxxer.
Any argument that getting rid of guns wouldn’t affect mass killings is just ridiculous on its face. I don’t think it’s politically (or likely physically) possible, but if there were no guns in America, there would be no mass shootings, and killing lots of people would be harder than it is now.
This is just very, very obvious by basic logic. This guy had an automatic weapon (or a semi-auto weapon modified to function with automatic fire), and killed and injured many, many more than in other mass shootings. If every mass shooter had had full-auto capable weapons, they would have killed lots more people. If every mass stabber had had a semi-auto handgun, they probably would have killed lots more people. If every mass puncher had had a knife, they probably would have killed lots more people.
That doesn’t mean we can or should get rid of guns. But that’s just a ridiculous argument against the prospect of considering whether the prevalence of guns in America leads to more mass shootings and more deaths in those mass shootings. It very obviously does.
Guns are easy to get in America, and they will be for the near and medium term, no matter what happens in politics. When guns are easy to get, it’s very easy for nuts and terrorists to commit mass shootings. When guns are hard to get, it’s hard for nuts and terrorists to commit mass shootings.
Charles Whitman, the man who shot 16 people at the University of Texas in 1966, had a brain tumor and it has been speculated that the tumor may have produced an inability to control his emotions and actions so may have been a contributing factor.
No one is trying to score political points. No one here is running for office. No one here is out to oppress you. People are expressing their genuine opinion. Stop trying to pretend that we must be lying. That’s what all this anti-PC, virtue signaling, and other crap is about: assuming we must be disingenuous.
The people in this thread are genuinely upset that there are solutions to this problem that have been shown to work in other countries but can’t be implemented here. It is frustrating as hell that a huge portion of society sees a mere object as worth more than the lives lost–lives that are not an inherent consequence of the item’s use.
You just confirmed the problem by admitting that you think your desire to carry a gun without even reasonable restrictions is worth more than stopping mass killings. Your position is exactly what is being pitted in this thread.
You claim that we as a society have made a decision. But we haven’t. The majority of our society wants some form of gun control. The majority of this country cares about the lives of people more than not having to jump through some hoops to get a gun. They are willing to try and find some sort of compromise that is the best for all.
Psychopaths exist, and will always exist. It makes far more sense to be mad at the people who prevent any measures being made to stop the problem than it does to focus on a group of individuals that will always exist. Gun laws can be changed.
I’ll be honest. I am firmly in the middle on the gun debate, usually. But comments like yours make me lean far more towards much, much stronger gun control. One group is actually upset about the lives being lost. The other is making excuses for them. Those making excuses are the ones that allow the bad thing to keep happening.
There is no inherent reason that having guns has to mean that all these people can be so easily murdered. Stop pretending there is, and try to come together and try to figure out a way to stop this shit while still getting as much of what you want as is practical.
Or you will wind up having everything you want taken away.
I wonder, given that the Swiss keep their militia rifles in their homes, how many occasionally go berserk and use them to commit massacres. If the answer is almost never, then I have to wonder what other than the presence of guns makes a difference.
And Bricker says that will never happen. Ever. So why the hysteria? As stated in the part of my post you didn’t quote, I believe we all know why. And it’s not a real fear of liberals.
I feel obligated to stick up for Okrahoma here, who doesn’t strike me as outrageously dumb— just a vile, contemptuous, morally bankrupt piece of shit who ought to know better, but chooses not to.
That is another thing. You guys keep bringing up items that can also be used to kill, but you neglect to mention that we have regulations on all of them. While gun regulations get fought tooth and nail.
You’re making the case for gun regulation by bringing up other dangerous items that are regulated and thus result in fewer killings.
You are absolutists. You are fundamentalists. In other contexts, you get that this is wrong. What is it about guns?
This is like the flag thing; the gun is a symbol more than anything, isn’t it? It means something to you beyond its actual physical form. And what we are fighting is a bunch of beliefs tied to that symbol, not just the object itself.
It seems that we need to detangle all this bullshit and get that a gun really is just a tool, as even you guys claim. It’s not a symbol for self-defense or fighting against tyranny. It’s a projectile weapon that can be both useful and dangerous. That is all.
I am firmly of the opinion that we can have some gun regulation while keeping people who want to carry guns (and can do so responsibly) barely affected. But it can only happen if we see guns for what they are, and stop making excuses to do literally nothing every time a catastrophe shows up.