Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

[Glasshalffull]

Does everyone on here attribute words to people ad hoc to suit their argument. Am I saying gun control won't stop mass shootings. Yes. No inconsistency, I've said it throughout. I've also said the more guns off the streets the more safe they will be, but not extinguish the threat of mass shootings. It's got very tribal, people can disagree, it's ok.

Mate, you specifically said, in black and white, "I just can't see the arguments for gun control". Surely that means that you think there shouldn't be any, because they're pointless? By saying you "just can't see the argument", you're implicitly not accepting their major role in reducing the number of gun kilings - something which you now say you've always gone along with.

The manifest point of gun control is to massively reduce the number of shootings of all kinds, including mass shootings. Apart from the obvious fact that fewer guns = fewer shootings, there's ample evidence in the hugely lower level of gun violence in countries with strong gun controls. That being the case, surely you CAN see the arguments for gun control? Speed limits, seat belts and air bags don't mean that nobody can be killed in a traffic collision, but they do reduce the number of deaths and the level of injuries sustained. The argument for those safety measures with a car is the same as for gun controls.

While someone in the UK with ample finance and the intellect of Hannibal Lecter might be able to get hold of a gun of some sort, even he would struggle to get hold of a couple of assault rifles, ample ammo, and bullet proof vest. Given that, even your point that nothing will reduce gun violence to zero (something that nobody could ever argue with) isn't a strong one in addressing the imperfections in any control system.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Mate, you specifically said, in black and white, "I just can't see the arguments for gun control". Surely that means that you think there shouldn't be any, because they're pointless? By saying you "just can't see the argument", you're implicitly not accepting their major role in reducing the number of gun kilings - something which you now say you've always gone along with.

The manifest point of gun control is to massively reduce the number of shootings of all kinds, including mass shootings. Apart from the obvious fact that fewer guns = fewer shootings, there's ample evidence in the hugely lower level of gun violence in countries with strong gun controls. That being the case, surely you CAN see the arguments for gun control? Speed limits, seat belts and air bags don't mean that nobody can be killed in a traffic collision, but they do reduce the number of deaths and the level of injuries sustained. The argument for those safety measures with a car is the same as for gun controls.

While someone in the UK with ample finance and the intellect of Hannibal Lecter might be able to get hold of a gun of some sort, even he would struggle to get hold of a couple of assault rifles, ample ammo, and bullet proof vest. Given that, even your point that nothing will reduce gun violence to zero (something that nobody could ever argue with) isn't a strong one in addressing the imperfections in any control system.

'm a billion percent believer in the " it's not guns, it's people who kill people. I just can't see the arguments for gun control.

Where am I saying " tighter gun laws will reduce mass shootings " I'm not, never have. I want stricter gun controls because having less guns on the street is going to be better, and will make the street safer.

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

Not pointless. Proved that in some quarters, people will argue their case. I genuinely think reducing the amount of guns on the street - will be beneficial - and hopefully the number of incidents. My argument and that of people more knowledgeable than myself on the topic, have said categorically that mass shooting will continue. Incidentally, gun control isn't going to happen, ever. The pro gun lobby is too powerful n the US.

It’s such a stupid point that you are trying to make.
Will gun controls reduce mass shootings? Without a shadow of a doubt!
Will gun control stop mass shootings? No! Why on earth would it???

And yes, there WILL be tightening of the laws in the US, it’s a matter of time

 

[Glasshalffull]

Having castigated Spotty up, down, and sideways, I have to concede he'd have a glimmer of a point if applying his general argument specifically to the USA. That country seens to be awash with firearms, with even apparently 'normal' people owning guns, or even a collection of them. Even a UK level of control (which no politician would ever get away with, despite the latest atrocity) would take years to have any material effect on the level of gun crime, because a deranged bad guy might already own a firearm, or fairly readily be able to acquire one from some black market source.

This isn't an argument against controls, since anything making acquisition of a gun more difficult is a good thing, and attempts to acquire one illegally might actually get flagged to the authorities, but it does indicate that there wouldn't be an immediate and dramatic change following the introduction of controls. The only way for some earlier noticeable effect would be to reduce the number of existing firearms out there, somehow. I'm far from sure, but think Canada may be considering some sort of buy back scheme for the assault weapons, at least. That's possibly the way to go in the US.

 

[nsno-chris]

They’d rather issue 8 year olds with guns than remove their constitutional right.

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

Having castigated Spotty up, down, and sideways, I have to concede he'd have a glimmer of a point if applying his general argument specifically to the USA. That country seens to be awash with firearms, with even apparently 'normal' people owning guns, or even a collection of them. Even a UK level of control (which no politician would ever get away with, despite the latest atrocity) would take years to have any material effect on the level of gun crime, because a deranged bad guy might already own a firearm, or fairly readily be able to acquire one from some black market source.

This isn't an argument against controls, since anything making acquisition of a gun more difficult is a good thing, and attempts to acquire one illegally might actually get flagged to the authorities, but it does indicate that there wouldn't be an immediate and dramatic change following the introduction of controls. The only way for some earlier noticeable effect would be to reduce the number of existing firearms out there, somehow. I'm far from sure, but think Canada may be considering some sort of buy back scheme for the assault weapons, at least. That's possibly the way to go in the US.

Canada are indeed implementing this which will, I am sure make the Americans look pretty stupid with their statements about not being able to change their own laws and, thus, forcing them into somesort of review and change.

Also, don't think conceding to spotty is the right thing to do, he chnaged his wording so many times it was getting stupid. Making stricter gun laws will 100% reduce mass shootings, it is kind of obvious.

 

[JammyP]

Jammy didn't stop Dunblane, Hungerford which is my point Evil deranged person not going to be stopped. Regardless. NO GUNS but still happened

Stricter gun control followed Hungerford and Dunblane. What has happened since then in the UK? What has happened in the US? Which is my point.

 

[PhilM]

They’d rather issue 8 year olds with guns than remove their constitutional right.

As I'm not being a US citizen I may be wrong here, but someone suggested that in some states it's legally and practically easier to buy a gun than a pint.

 

[Parker]

Kids getting gunned down before their lives even get going is fine because insecure little nobodies need an instrument capable of mowing down tens of people per minute to make up for the gaping black hole that is their self worth.

And don't bang on about your freedom you bunch of weirdos. People have a freedom to go about their lives without the fear of getting murdered.

Anyone who argues for guns, especially in its current state, is just as evil and selfish as the gunmen themselves. You're complicit in allowing this to happen.

 

[nsno-chris]

As I'm not being a US citizen I may be wrong here, but someone suggested that in some states it's legally and practically easier to buy a gun than a pint.

It wouldn’t surprise me. They probably think alcohol is made by the devil, but god invented the gun; so it’s all good

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

Stricter gun control followed Hungerford and Dunblane. What has happened since then in the UK? What has happened in the US? Which is my point.

Exactly
@Spotty

 

[WA Toffee]

Not one person, not one, has answered my question. Would gun control stop the person who determined to kill a lot of people ? They will do it, regardless and nothing will stop them. Removing guns - not " doable " by the way, or even reducing their availability isn't going to work. How many times have you heard " nothing would have stopped him / her, they were determined. I just don't believe gun control is going to stop the crazed gunman. Answer, will gun control stop the crazed, unstable person ?

It's actually been answered a few times, but I will answer it for you again.

No, it won't stop every single mass shooting.
Yes, it will cause a massive decrease in the number of mass shooting.

So here's my question for you.
If a simple control measure, based on global data, is likely to reduce mass shootings by over 90%, should it be implemented?

 

[WA Toffee]

Noisy, are you saying that if the US introduced tighter / stricter gun rules and laws, it would stop mass shootings. ?

Reduce, not stop.
But you knew that is the point people are making, didn't you?

 

[WA Toffee]

No pretending at all. I'm saying 100% that I'm right. Gun control will not stop mass shootings. Your turn. Are you saying they will, by removing en mass people's rights to carry arms it will end mass killing ? How confident are you ? 100% sure.

Reduce, not stop. But you knew that, didn't you?

 

[WA Toffee]

Where have I said that I don't agree that tighter gun laws will reduce mass shootings ? Don't bother scrolling to where you think I said it. I have not said they won't. Please don't twist my words and attribute things I have supposedly said. I have said and never deviated from it. Strictor gun laws will not stop mass shootings.

I can't make it any more clearer. It appears that I am the only one in this discussion who has said this, or at least, clearly said it.

Pretty much everyone in this thread acknowledges that gun control will not stop mass shootings. Why do you keep labouring that point?
You seem to be aware that everyone else is talking about reducing, but you keep talking about stopping. Why is that? Is it because if you don't agree on what you're actually arguing about, you can't be wrong?