US Gun Control

[Arkten]

11 Israelis Olympic team members were hostaged and killed by Black September, not Red Army Faction.

Thank you for correcting my statement. You are indeed correct, the massacres 1972 in Munich were done by Black September. I simply assumed it to be the RAF which terrorized Germany during that timespan.

For every school shooting, there are a large count of people saying "if only someone else in the school had a gun to take out the shooter".
For every school shooting there is a new video that circulates of a home owner shooting and killing multiple armed intruders at night.

1. Interestingly enough schools in the USA are afaik gun-free zones. You are not allowed to carry a gun in a school. Shouldn't this prevent school shootings by your logic?
2. Probably because it seems to be an effective way of defending yourself.

I find this one thought experiment very interesting because it is easily applicable to real world scenarios: Imagine a room, that is filled with 50 people. We do not want someone to be able to inflict high damage and thus ban guns from that room. To actually enforce this rule we search every single person who enters that room to make sure nobody enters with a gun (or any kind of weapon for that matter.). We have a single point of failure here. Not only has it a massive impact if we fuck up ONLY ONCE, this method does not scale very well too. Say we need to search 50,000 people. You are statistically doomed to fail if you choose this method.
If we however give everyone a gun at the entrance, it does not matter much if we miss a couple, because we still have a pretty good balance of powers inside that room. Now this will not of course not prevent any insane person to still shoot someone, but it would probably reduce the amount of damage that can be done.

The obvious middle ground that is being worked on by the liberals in America is the banning assault weaponry and any weaponry that is designed to do heavy damage. Anything meant to make shooty shooty go VERY fast is nothing but a fucking problem. Owner's of these guns cannot form a single defense for having them beyond "its muh 2A right" and "its collectible" and "i like shooty". They also love to claim that the assault weaponry is needed to fend off a corrupt government. Yeah good luck taking out that squad that has millions of dollars of equipment with your AR-15, Cletus.

I do not see how a pistol is any less deadlier than an assault rifle, really. Whether i can just hold my full-auto rifle and let my gun overheat or I quickly tap the trigger on my semi-auto. The damage is done either way and banning ARs are in no way helpful.

Now all high schools have metal detectors in the entrance like as if you're walking inside an Embassy lmaoooo
Plus, house parties are at risk. If anyone and literally anyone can come in with a gun and cause some heat. Next thing you know you Have your house on a 5 star GTA wanted level lol

I can also break the bottle and stab someone. It is really, really easy. The problem is not that everyone is armed. The problem is that someone is armed who is ready to use it and others aren't.

We cant remove all guns from USA. But we can allow people who pass due diligence, psych test and in-dept screening, with no priors of hate extremism to be allowed to carry guns.

I absolutely agree with you here. Banning guns is not the solution, however, restricting them to people who are responsible with this should not be a problem.

There has been 2,487 mass shootings since Sandy Hook. So far in 2020, 140 people have been killed and 583 wounded in 145 mass shootings. These faces are just part of a statistic.
Each image represents a single mass shooting, let that sink in for a minute.
Their death could've been prevented, but gun advocates chose not to.

I doubt that. Banning guns does not mean nobody will die in a violent act.

Criminals don't buy illegal unregistered guns just to shoot innocent people, they do it for their underground business and to use it on other criminals. All of the perpetrators that are responsible for all of these people's death weren't criminals, but people who were thought as normal or odd that snapped. They never had to pay thousands of dollars for an unregistered gun at a black market just to go on a killing spree before they kill themselves, they could just buy them at a local gun store. Stephen Paddock, who opened fire at a 22,000 crowd from a Las Vegas hotel, was a real-estate investor, a property manager, a retired accountant, a normal guy. Those who knew him thought it was unimaginable that he would kill anyone, until he proved them wrong on the night of 1st October 2017.

I don't quite get the argument here. Do you think they would not have killed people if guns were banned? Do you think they would have not bought one from the black market. Sure they did not buy one, because it was easier for them to legally buy one. Just EASIER not IMPOSSIBLE. It also helps that he does not care at all what happened with them. Now, this does sound like a mental health problem and I agree that he should not gotten a gun in the first place. I do not quite know the rules in the US but in Germany you have to provide a psychological evaluation. Sure you can easily get through that test if you are determined to kill. But then again, if you are determined to kill someone with a gun, laws will not stop you.
I also highly doubt that he just "snapped". This is often the portrayal of mental health issues that suddenly become a problem to the public. Truth is, the problem started way earlier, namely at the cause of the mental health problem. You do not go out and kill someone just because you feel like it. It is more often than not planned. These individuals should have received mental healthcare. Stripping the victims of their protection does not help. Instead I would argue that anti-gun advocates chose to let all the people die you pictured in your post.

[Arkten]

I would love to point out that the Nazis disarmed political enemies and were thus able to carry out mass murder with relatively little resistance.
But THIS ARTICLE does its best at reinterprating its sources without actual fact-checking. If you check the sources that claim this arrgument as "problematic", "questionable" and the like you see that their essence has been altered to fit the "Playing the nazi card"-narrative.

If anyone wants to, hit me up on Discord and we go through this together.

[horror]

Atleast I can go to school without getting shot 

[Dextah]

Atleast I can go to school without getting shot 

ikr feels nice going to uni and coming back alive

[Arkten]

Well I wrote out an entire post over the course of 30 minutes but the forums decided to fucking remove it, so thanks dipshit forum programming.

Short recap because I do not want to rewrite it all:

Mass shootings, defined as killing or injuring more than 4 people in a short time, only account for 3% of gun violence deaths in the united states, and that the rate of homicides in the united states is roughly 5 per 100,000 people total, which put the mass shooting rate of death at around 0.15 per 100,000 people.

Most of Europe is around the 1-2 deaths per 100,000 people mark, so clearly there is some issue with American culture that needs to change.

Arkten, those thoughts aren't my own in those examples you pointed out, those were just general thoughts that come from a lot of the American populace in general, so it's not my logic. I had said "there are a large count of people saying", not "I think". 

I am personally a proponent of limiting gun ownership to low ammo-count pistols and hunting rifles for self defense, because those get the job of self-defense or hunting done perfectly fine, without opening up room for significant mass shootings. Again, only 3% so those self-defense pistols could still contribute to the other 97% of gun deaths quite easily if we don't limit who can get guns incredibly well.

Fair enough, I should have not attributed the logic towards you.
I like how you point out the gun death per 100,000 people statistic. AFAIK in USA those are indeed 5 where as in Germany they are 0.8 (As you said most of europe is well below the 5.). So I agree, there is something going wrong in American culture that are causing these high numbers. But just pointing it out to the amount of weapons the American population has does not do it justice. The problem at hand is too complex to just break it down to the one-dimensional number of guns in a country. Switzerland has a relatively high amount of guns relative to the people living there and the weapon restrictions are not as strict as most other european countries (Again I am taking Germany as an example here.), however, the gun death rate per 100,000 people is a stunning 0.5! So it simply cannot be the guns.

[Falcon]

What are you gunna do? Take it from me?

[Venom]

Me when I go to school everyday

[Divey]

What are you gunna do? Take it from me?

Yes

[Falcon]

What are you gunna do? Take it from me?

Yes

I'd like to see you try smelly boy.

[konsta]

There has been 2,487 mass shootings since Sandy Hook. So far in 2020, 140 people have been killed and 583 wounded in 145 mass shootings. These faces are just part of a statistic.
Each image represents a single mass shooting, let that sink in for a minute.
Their death could've been prevented, but gun advocates chose not to.

I doubt that. Banning guns does not mean nobody will die in a violent act.

Sure, banning guns does not mean nobody will die in a violent act, I never said it wouldn't happen. But these mass shootings could've been played out very differently or prevented altogether if they met with deterrence.

Criminals don't buy illegal unregistered guns just to shoot innocent people, they do it for their underground business and to use it on other criminals. All of the perpetrators that are responsible for all of these people's death weren't criminals, but people who were thought as normal or odd that snapped. They never had to pay thousands of dollars for an unregistered gun at a black market just to go on a killing spree before they kill themselves, they could just buy them at a local gun store. Stephen Paddock, who opened fire at a 22,000 crowd from a Las Vegas hotel, was a real-estate investor, a property manager, a retired accountant, a normal guy. Those who knew him thought it was unimaginable that he would kill anyone, until he proved them wrong on the night of 1st October 2017.

I don't quite get the argument here. Do you think they would not have killed people if guns were banned? Do you think they would have not bought one from the black market. Sure they did not buy one, because it was easier for them to legally buy one. Just EASIER not IMPOSSIBLE. It also helps that he does not care at all what happened with them. Now, this does sound like a mental health problem and I agree that he should not gotten a gun in the first place. I do not quite know the rules in the US but in Germany you have to provide a psychological evaluation. Sure you can easily get through that test if you are determined to kill. But then again, if you are determined to kill someone with a gun, laws will not stop you.
I also highly doubt that he just "snapped". This is often the portrayal of mental health issues that suddenly become a problem to the public. Truth is, the problem started way earlier, namely at the cause of the mental health problem. You do not go out and kill someone just because you feel like it. It is more often than not planned. These individuals should have received mental healthcare. Stripping the victims of their protection does not help. Instead I would argue that anti-gun advocates chose to let all the people die you pictured in your post.

Ok dude I don't recall the scale of mass shooting like in the US anywhere else by people who "snapped" because of the cause of their mental health problem that made them buy or steal a gun and just shoot at random innocent people. Seriously now you're focusing on mental health problem to avoid the problems with second amendment? Tell me a region or a continent with a strong law enforcement anywhere in the world with that many mass shootings. God even Africa doesn't reach that scale of mass shooting. Stephen Paddock's cause was depression from losing a lot of his money. Omar Mateen, who shot and killed 49 people at an Orlando gay club, was conflicted about his religion and sexuality, and had anger issues. All of their guns were legally purchased. In a different country they couldn't legally obtain them, and there's no shortage of people like them. Do you seriously not see how is this a problem that they could legally obtain such firearms? But then again for you gun is not a problem but only mental health.

"Stripping the victims of their protection does not help." So now you want everyone to carry a gun for their protection? Because that's the only way they could combat their killers. The US is supposed to be a wealthy first world and developed country, everyone should feel safe regardless if they're carrying a gun or not, it's a rule of law country, not a war torn one. By forcing a society into carrying a weapon out of their own safety, things are not gonna look very well and I'm sure most law enforcers can agree with me on this. Mass shootings can be thwarted but not manslaughters.

I believe that owning a gun is a responsibility, not a right. It should be obtainable for civilians with the right paper work, medical and psychological examinations, a long background check, mandatory training and education, and with a license.

In the US that's not the case, if you pass your background check you can buy a gun with no problem. A background check for a semi-auto rifle depending on what state you're in can take as little as 10 minutes for a pass, if it's delayed then it takes 3 days for the gun seller to receive a call from the FBI to determine your purchase, if it's denied then you're denied a sale. If you're a convicted felon, a fugitive, dishonourable discharged from the military, involuntary committed to a mental hospital, a drug user, or have domestic violence history, you're denied a sale. The weakness and flaw with this system is that if the FBI doesn't call up for 3 days, on the 4th you'll have your gun. Dylann Roof, got his Glock when the examiner at the FBI didn't call after 3 days, because of federal laws, bureaucracy, confusion and investigation on Dylann. By the time she had an answer, 3 days passed. 

The problem with mass shooters is that these people often don't have a criminal record and shockingly no mental health history, therefore they can pass a background check. Stephen Paddock, had no criminal record, or mental health history, therefore he could stockpile. Next thing you know, he opened fire at 22,000 people from his hotel window. 

By making it harder to obtain guns, you are deterring mass shooters from killing innocent people that could be anyone's loved ones, no one wants to turn on the TV, see another mass shooting, and see their loved ones in the list of victims. Studies have shown that gun control can be an effective strategy to combat gun related deaths, from suicide to homicide to mass shooting. https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/...40/2754868