To gun, or not to gun?

Well, in the US, they are kind of a right.

There are many good people with guns. The problem is that too many get in the wrong hands.

Technically not true but it's true enough. My only problem with this claim is that bad guys with guns usually win, because good guys with guns can't react in time. But nonetheless, protection is still good. A pro-gun group actually simulated multiple times what it would have been like if someone in the Charlie Hebdo shooting had a gun, but the terrorists were still winning. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...reates-charlie-hebdo-attack-article-1.2081534

I'm not making a claim against concealed carry or anything. I'm just trying to make a point about how guns don't make people as safe as they believe.

 

This is true, but remember, mass shooting events account for only a miniscule percentage of actual violent crime deaths (counting a mass shooting as when, like, 10 or more people die, hence "mass".)

This is true. Some people believe that if they have a gun, they are automatically safe. This isn't true, but it evens the odds from being 100% against you.

Well the only realistic events are 1 Shooter does his thing and then commits suicide, or 2 Someone with a gun stops him. Nothing but those two really happens.

 

What bugs me is that mass shootings are more easily preventable than other kinds of violence crime deaths. But we still fail to act on it.

By the way, the textbook definition of a mass shooting is 4 or more casualties (either fatal or non-fatal) from a single shooting.

Which is why I have no problem with concealed carry. As long as everyone is in check with background checks and sufficient testing for mental health.

I guess my previous answer would also answer this one.

 

It isn't impossible to get an assault rifle thought, my friends dad had two.

 

Full auto? Unless hes a class 3 FFl then theyre illegal, or youre lying. lol

 

dude, safety pins are where its at.

 

He was in the military.

 

On a side note a guy I knew was a Vietnam vet and he was showing me his CPL the other day and it had a statement that bypassed "gun-free" zones. It looked legit but do they actually give those out in the state of Michigan if you're past a certain standard of proficiency.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 25, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 25, 2016 ---

The legalese went something like "exempt from restricted zones" and his explanation was that he had passed with the confidence that if he were to shoot under pressure, his shots would hit the right guy.

 

It doesnt matter. They dont allow you to take full auto firearms out. Theyre registered to the government and must be returned when you leave.

 

Actually there are a couple. Under some (I believe this came up earlier in the thread), 4 casualties means 4 people killed or injured, no matter how minor (a grazed earlobe, for example), in a non-gang related incident. I personally dislike this definition, as four people hardly counts as mass anything. I mean, four suicides happen about every 45 minutes in the U.S. Does that mean we're seeing mass suicides? That's 100+ people per day, after all.

It doesn't though. Look at the trend of homicide rates before and after gun bans. It doesn't change.

And there are even more preventable deaths than those. I mean, not to dismiss death, but in the grand scheme of things, the number of people who die in mass shootings is pretty irrelevant (definition of mass shooting being 4 or more deaths, aside from the shooter)

 

Right but if together, 4 people all killed themselves, that would be a mass suicide right? it was a mass suicide when a party of random teenagers killed themselves because of big time rush or something (I spend to much time on cable news)

 

Not really...

mass

[mas]

participated in or performed by a large number of people, especially together in a group:
mass demonstrations; mass suicide.


4 people is hardly a large number, especially considering that we have 320 million people in the U.S.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 26, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 26, 2016 ---

That depends on how many people participated.

 

Thats the thing with words like mass, small, big, its relative. Because most gun related murders (I'm pretty sure) are singular shootings, 4 people getting gunned down IMO is mass.

 

Yeah but 4 people IS the actual decider for "Mass".
If its over 4 its categorized as mass and counts towards all statistics.

 

Is it legal to own an achisson assault shotgun (not the experimental AA-12) if it was manufactured before 1982

 

Well, it has to be in a single event. So unless 4+ people kill themselves together (like in a cult or something), then it's not really a mass suicide.

I tried looking but I seem to not find any clear answers. I've heard some countries have decreased gun homicides without increasing other homicide rates. Though, interestingly enough, burglary rates in many countries with less gun homicides is significantly higher than the US. Basically, the US doesn't have more crime, the crime in the US just happens to be more lethal.

But it's not just mass shootings. The fact that so many guns in gun violence are legally purchased in other parts of the country/state is what erks me the most. Perhaps it's not whether or not gun control will even work, it's just the shear fact that congress is doing absolutely nothing to tackle this issue that angers me the most. They could pass a meaningless law saying "anyone who murders someone is a jerk", and that would be more than they've ever done in recent years to tackle the problem.

 

I know I've already posted this:

from: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

That's what I've been saying. People make a big deal about them, and use them to further the gun control agenda, but in the grand scheme of things (total homicide rate), they're pretty irrelevant.

Okay...

What do you suggest they do?

In terms of shooting, yes. In terms of anything else, no.

Exactly, even though it isn't massive.

If someone came into my house tonight, and shot all of my immediate family, it would be a "mass" shooting. That's ridiculous.

 

They can start with fixing the no fly list. Remove the random people on it and then ban people on that list from purchasing guns.
Also, fix the gunshow loophole.

 

So you're going to ban people from having a gun even though they've never done something wrong? Without due process?

 

Well, the law that was voted down in congress basically made it so the government would have to prove there's probable cause to stop someone on the no fly list from buying a gun. (meaning if they are on the no fly list, they wouldn't be affected if they haven't done anything wrong). You then see the right wing media trying to play it off as if the law banned every single person on the no fly list from purchasing a gun. (Not that the left wing media isn't guilty for other reasons)

Also, I don't think I said ban people from having a gun if they've never done anything wrong. If I did, my bad. Just fix the no fly list. That's a start.