Mass Shootings in America Thread

Started by Putinbot1264 pages

Originally posted by Silent Master
We tried that with alcohol back in the day and with drugs today. banning doesn't really stop people from getting them. it just makes criminals rich.
thing is guns are not a physically addictive chemical.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
thing is guns are not a physically addictive chemical.

If you were president and you banned guns what would you do about the hundreds of millions of guns already in this country that people already own?

Originally posted by Putinbot1
thing is guns are not a physically addictive chemical.

Doesn't matter, Prostitution is also illegal in the vast majority of the United States, prostitution still happens.

Originally posted by Surtur
If you were president and you banned guns what would you do about the hundreds of millions of guns already in this country that people already own?
make it difficult to purchase ammo, gun nuts love to shoot, they'd run out in a year. Even survival nuts with enough ammo to start a war.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Doesn't matter, Prostitution is also illegal in the vast majority of the United States, prostitution still happens.
again sex is a physical and emotional need... owning a gun isn't.

You realize that is very easy to make and load your own ammo, right?

Originally posted by Putinbot1
again sex is a physical and emotional need... owning a gun isn't.

We also made stealing illegal, hasn't stopped anyone.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
make it difficult to purchase ammo, gun nuts love to shoot, they'd run out in a year. Even survival nuts with enough ammo to start a war.

And in the mean time what do you do until they all run out of ammo?

Also the true gun nuts will just make their own bullets and what about 3D printers can those be used to create bullets?

Also you don't think you'd just create a yuge demand for people to purchase them illegally?

Originally posted by Silent Master
You realize that is very easy to make and load your own ammo, right?
yeah, but it would reduce it to the gun nuts who have time to do it. Yes they would sell to the other cun nuts but ammo is bigger in size than a bag of coke, so you wouldn't see a deal going down as easily.

Originally posted by Robtard
I've not followed this story beyond Cart's post listing 6 people had been murdered, so I don't know the why/who/whats.

I don't now if "extreme gun control" is needed in the first place? Maybe sensible control? Maybe not? Maybe try EGC for a few years, check the data and see if it's improved, worsened or stayed the same?

Seems the senseless violence and killing needs to stop and it is one of the "issues" I want solved.

If extreme gun control reduces the intentional homicide figure, per capita, that's a win. It has to be significant. It can't be something negligible like the assault weapons ban that had a near 0, almost statistically insignificant reduction. It had a reduction, yes, but it was almost nonexistent. Need something stronger. Because putting that money and effort into better mental health and a UHC would solve far more intentional homicides than extreme gun control by my guess.

However, it's just a guess. And that guess likely has a bias. Japan and Australia had a zero to negative correlation to their extreme gun control laws. But the US is different so I don't think we can compare the two. I highly doubt murder rates would slightly increase after extreme gun bans?

I think it was Backfire: why can't the solution be multifaceted? It doesn't need to be just this or that. It can be a mix of all 4-5 things we've talked about.

The more I read about it, the more I talk about it, the more it seems like "no nonsense gun regulations" only apply to the legal people, anyway. Feels like little intentional homicide is prevented with any of the gun regulations. And I go back to the argument about the woman who has a creepy violent stalker: if she needs a gun to defend herself and she has to wait 72 hours, she might end up dead anyway. So the excuse/idea that people need guns to defend themselves is at least partially defeated by the notion that you have to wait for one, anyway. If it was really necessary, we'd have women's rights marches to get guns faster. I guess?

This feels more like it should be a conversation instead of a message board back and forth. I wish we could start a Discord channel or a podcast. Just talk about this stuff. We'd have to let TheLoneRanger scream and rage for 2 minutes about every 30 minutes, though. Then we'd mute him and get back to the topic.

Originally posted by Surtur
And in the mean time what do you do until they all run out of ammo?

Also the true gun nuts will just make their own bullets and what about 3D printers can those be used to create bullets?

Also you don't think you'd just create a yuge demand for people to purchase them illegally?

anything worth doing is worth waiting for. It's like smoking eventually it got a stigma.

I feel like if a person is a gun nut and the only way to get bullets is to make them they would make the time...

Originally posted by Putinbot1
yeah, but it would reduce it to the gun nuts who have time to do it. Yes they would sell to the other cun nuts but ammo is bigger in size than a bag of coke, so you wouldn't see a deal going down as easily.

Which would be almost all of them, as it doesn't take very long.

Originally posted by Surtur
I feel like if a person is a gun nut and the only way to get bullets is to make them they would make the time...
some would, no doubt. Like I say the stigma of being a gun nut and possible shooter, shooter enabler is the narrative I would push and hard.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
anything worth doing is worth waiting for. It's like smoking eventually it got a stigma.

So if you're ammo plan didn't reduce deaths by any great amount what would you do?

Originally posted by Surtur
So if you're ammo plan didn't reduce deaths by any great amount what would you do?
continue to create more and more of a stigma around gun nuts. Till only the gun nut states are left in favour, then carpet bomb them.

And if someone used a 3D printer to create bullets and then killed someone I assume those would then be banned?

Originally posted by Surtur
And if someone used a 3D printer to create bullets and then killed someone I assume those would then be banned?
you would need lots of time for that have you seen how slow the home ones are.

A gun nut would make the time, but I have no doubt advances will be made. Who knows how fast it will be in 5-10 years?

Originally posted by Surtur
And if someone used a 3D printer to create bullets and then killed someone I assume those would then be banned?

You need some sort of propellant to make your own bullets if you didn't have access to smokeless powders or the ingredients to make type of gun powders.