Sutherland Springs, TX shooting

Could it maybe be because Trump agrees with counter terrorism and border security measures and doesn't agree with gun control measures? Kinda like how a lot of the same people who push gun control after shootings don't push the same measures Trump does after an Islamic terror attack. It is not disingenuous for someone to push policy in one instance when they agree with the proposed solutions but not in other instances when they don't.

I will say though that Trump using the terrorist attack as a cudgel to push for immigration policy is in the same boat as Jimmy Kimmel and his ilk using mass shootings as a cudgel to beat their political opponents over the head with emotional appeals and character attacks. And I oppose both of them on that strategy.

Originally posted by jaden101
I see the same old cyclical arguments being used on both sides of the gun control debate here.

Neither side listens to the other. It's as polarised and entrenched as everything else in US politics.

Zero changes will be made unless there's money to be made.

To the contrary, money is made by the gun industry whenever an attack like this happens as gun and ammo sales spike. The Gun Industry will likely make record profits this quarter with these attacks seemingly increasing.

This is terrible.

So many guns are in circulation at this point that I'm not even sure how the US would go about solving the problem.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Certainly more helpful than whatever the **** you're doing in this thread tbh

It's actually not.

Shitting on your lawn in the name of peace would objectively be more helpful to the world.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Could it maybe be because Trump agrees with counter terrorism and border security measures and doesn't agree with gun control measures? Kinda like how a lot of the same people who push gun control after shootings don't push the same measures Trump does after an Islamic terror attack. It is not disingenuous for someone to push policy in one instance when they agree with the proposed solutions but not in other instances when they don't.

I will say though that Trump using the terrorist attack as a cudgel to push for immigration policy is in the same boat as Jimmy Kimmel and his ilk using mass shootings as a cudgel to beat their political opponents over the head with emotional appeals and character attacks. And I oppose both of them on that strategy.

Or could it be that Trump can't push his agenda because the skin color and religion of the terrorist in Las Vegas and here don't fit? So he does the the "meh, it's mental health".

Except of course one side is using "emotional appeals" as a means to possibly make changes to gun related violence, the other is using it to push a xenophobic policy that won't likely do/stop much.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
This is terrible.

So many guns are in circulation at this point that I'm not even sure how the US would go about solving the problem.

It's actually not.

Shitting on your lawn in the name of peace would objectively be more helpful to the world.

It's the same "American is the greatest country in the world, we can do anything" who take the "nope, there's nothing we can do about gun violence".

So we just wait until the next attack and have our "thoughts and prayers" cards ready, cos those cost nothing.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i can tell from reading the comments here that it wasn't a muslim

I love the way pieces of shit like this moron had to respond. 👆

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Could it maybe be because Trump agrees with counter terrorism and border security measures and doesn't agree with gun control measures? Kinda like how a lot of the same people who push gun control after shootings don't push the same measures Trump does after an Islamic terror attack. It is not disingenuous for someone to push policy in one instance when they agree with the proposed solutions but not in other instances when they don't.

I will say though that Trump using the terrorist attack as a cudgel to push for immigration policy is in the same boat as Jimmy Kimmel and his ilk using mass shootings as a cudgel to beat their political opponents over the head with emotional appeals and character attacks. And I oppose both of them on that strategy.

Just accept how things are.l They're gonna throw a fit whenever anything is dared to be said about Muslims after they pull off a terror attack, but they will defend to the death any comments on "it's all Republicans!" if it's a white guy who did it.

It's why they are not to be taken seriously lol. Just look at how Rob responded to you. The message is clear: THEIR emotional appeals are the right ones, the conservatives emotional appeals are the wrong ones.

Originally posted by Surtur
I love the way pieces of shit like this moron had to respond. 👆

something wrong, squirt?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
something wrong, squirt?

I'm amused by pathetic souls like you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't see that at all in this thread. I see US Leftists using old, tired, and even ill-informed ideas on how to solve violence in the US and me, the most liberal person in this thread, knocking down the stupid ideas and using legit data to help steer people towards the proper solutions.

Has anyone in this thread represented the "other side" at all in this thread?

Or were you talking about US Americans and not this thread?

I see the exact same "guns are/aren't the problem" arguments we've seen in every mass shooting thread we've had on the boards since I've been a member.

Yes there are countries with high levels of gun ownership but low levels of gun violence. (although the US has by far and away the highest per capita gun ownership) Yes there are countries with very strict gun laws yet still have high levels of gun violence.

The US isn't either of those but what we do know is that whatever the US is it isn't working.

There's so many pointless examples given on both sides that lack any context. Example: Chicago. A city with relatively strict gun laws but with high levels of gun crime. Nobody ever bothers to mention that its strict gun laws are utterly irrelevant and useless when the city is surrounded by a country with much less strict gun laws and no borders between the city and the rest of the country to stop guns getting into the city in the first place.

In this specific incident the perpetrator couldn't legally own a gun but still killed people regardless. Nobody mentions that he lives in a state where he could easily access someone else's legally owned gun. Would he have still got his hands on a gun as easily if that wasn't the case?

Then there's the culture and how people perceive guns. The glorification and romanticisation of owning a gun in the US.

My favourite is the "to fight against a tyrannical government" argument. Does anyone believe that the US military will follow a government that will order them to slaughter their fellow citizens? And even if they did does anyone believe their AR-15s are going to do anything against M1-Abrams battle tanks and supersonic bombers with precision guided missiles?

Originally posted by jaden101
In this specific incident the perpetrator couldn't legally own a gun but still killed people regardless. Nobody mentions that he lives in a state where he could easily access someone else's legally owned gun. Would he have still got his hands on a gun as easily if that wasn't the case?

If I legally own a gun, I can take it, drive over to someone's house, be let into their house, give them the gun, take the money, walk out, drive home, and there's not much the police can do to stop that regardless of whatever legislation is in place.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
What gun control prevents you from accessing someone else's legally owned gun?

If I legally own a gun, I can take it, drive over to someone's house, be let into their house, give them the gun, take the money, walk out, drive home, and there's not much the police can do to stop that regardless of whatever legislation is in place.

I'm just waiting for more people to just flat out say "ban guns". You know it is coming. Some in this country are already saying it.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm just waiting for more people to just flat out say "ban guns". You know it is coming. Some in this country are already saying it.

Originally posted by Scribble
Ban all semi-automatic guns, maybe? So only bolt-action rifles and chambered handguns were legal. I dunno, I don't know enough about America's gun culture, other than it being immensely widespread.

Most handguns are semi-autos so I don't think that would fly.

Originally posted by Surtur
Most handguns are semi-autos so I don't think that would fly.

Like I say, I don't know much about American gun culture, however I can see the prospect of impounding every semi-auto handgun to be a task perhaps too large to undertake

Originally posted by Scribble
Worth a shot though, no? (No pun intended)

Like I say, I don't know much about American gun culture, however I can see the prospect of impounding every semi-auto handgun to be a task perhaps too large to undertake

I could see people making the argument for the semi-automatic pistols in situations of life and death where every second counts.

I don't think it's unreasonable at all for somebody to have a semi-automatic for defense.

The reality of banning semi-automatics is that you'd be restricting the freedoms of every american in the country, you'd be confiscating a ****ton of people's legitimately obtained and purchased property (some of which might preseumably be family heirlooms, gifts, or hold some other strong sentimental value to the individual), you'd be removing the legal option of a very reasonable self-defense measure from the individual, and given the sheer quantity of semi-automatic weapons in the country (the majority of rifles and pistols) there's no way in hell the government would be anywhere near remotely successful at removing semi-automatics from the populace, so the idea that criminals having semi-automatic guns wouldn't be a common occurrence is a fantasy. It'd also likely create a profitable illegal arms market, which would be another issue to contend with.

All in all, banning semi-automatics doesn't seem remotely reasonable. It would create an incentive for an illegal market to form that is unregulated, untaxed, and would require law enforcement resources and taxpayer dollars to combat. It wouldn't be very effective at actually getting semi-automatics away from criminals given the sheer number of semi-automatics in the US. It would be successful however in restricting the liberty of every single American citizen, remove from Americans the legality of a pretty reasonable self-defense option, and require the confiscation of legitimately obtained property with likely sentimental value. Doesn't seem like a good trade-off to me.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I don't think it's unreasonable at all for somebody to have a semi-automatic for defense.

The reality of banning semi-automatics is that you'd be restricting the freedoms of every american in the country, you'd be confiscating a ****ton of people's legitimately obtained and purchased property (some of which might preseumably be family heirlooms, gifts, or hold some other strong sentimental value to the individual), you'd be removing the legal option of a very reasonable self-defense measure from the individual, and given the sheer quantity of semi-automatic weapons in the country (the majority of rifles and pistols) there's no way in hell the government would be anywhere near remotely successful at removing semi-automatics from the populace, so the idea that criminals having semi-automatic guns wouldn't be a common occurrence is a fantasy. It'd also likely create a profitable illegal arms market, which would be another issue to contend with.

All in all, banning semi-automatics doesn't seem remotely reasonable. It would create an incentive for an illegal market to form that is unregulated, untaxed, and would require law enforcement resources and taxpayer dollars to combat. It wouldn't be very effective at actually getting semi-automatics away from criminals given the sheer number of semi-automatics in the US. It would be successful however in restricting the liberty of every single American citizen, remove from Americans the legality of a pretty reasonable self-defense option, and require the confiscation of legitimately obtained property with likely sentimental value. Doesn't seem like a good trade-off to me.

Plus, criminals would still have guns, so you'd just be taking away any form of defence that average citizens currently have. One of the things that annoys me about the UK is that I'm not even legally allowed to fight back against someone who's attacking me, let alone carry something to protect myself. Seriously, even just some pepper spray would put me at ease, y'know? So I see what you mean entirely with that point.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
What gun control prevents you from accessing someone else's legally owned gun?

If I legally own a gun, I can take it, drive over to someone's house, be let into their house, give them the gun, take the money, walk out, drive home, and there's not much the police can do to stop that regardless of whatever legislation is in place.

That's my point. Being unable to legally own a gun in a city/state/country awash with legally owned guns doesn't stop people getting their hands on guns with ease.

As I've said before, you can do numerous things. Start by making it an offence to sell guns to anywhere but authorised second hand dealerships who then resell and reregister with new owners. Make guns have fingerprint locking so only the legally registered owner can fire it. If you can lock a phone with a fingerprint how hard can it be to lock a gun?

Originally posted by Scribble
Honestly, these are all good and rational arguments that I understand. With that much of a gun culture in the US, simply banning certain types of guns won't change most people's minds, and like you say, it'd probably just encourage a black market. Pretty much the same deal as with cannabis: sure, it's legal, but who cares? It doesn't stop people owning and using it.

Plus, criminals would still have guns, so you'd just be taking away any form of defence that average citizens currently have. One of the things that annoys me about the UK is that I'm not even legally allowed to fight back against someone who's attacking me, let alone carry something to protect myself. Seriously, even just some pepper spray would put me at ease, y'know? So I see what you mean entirely with that point.

I used to be very much against guns until I actually got to know some people that owned them.

Thank god an armed citizen potentially prevented this guy from causing more harm.