(Closed) Gun control due to terrorism

posted 3 months ago in The Lounge
Post # 31
Member
9207 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: August 2012

The US has the second amendment. Gun culture is also strongly ingrained in a large part of the population. I’m not saying it’s right, but it’s definitely there.

The buyback in Australia cost the government something like $500 million, and they only bought back ~650,000 guns. There is no official gun count in the US, but it’s estimated that there are 393 MILLION guns in america. Where is that money going to come from?

I am all for stricter background checks, waiting periods, red flag laws, etc. But IMO you can’t compare a country that has ~10% the population the US has, and just be like “well why don’t they do that too.” It’s a lot more complicated, especially when you factor in that each state has its own gun laws as well.

Post # 32
Member
4737 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: October 2017

aoifeo :  people actually believe that arming our teachers would be a good way to stop more school shootings.

Teachers have to buy their own school supplies for the class, but some in society will pay to have them trained and armed to shoot kids before someone can shoot first.

The nra says the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun

Well what happens when you’re the good guy, you see someone acting funny, pulling something out of their pocket, you think they are robbing the place, and then you shoot them? Cops do that and they are heavily trained

Or, what happens if you successfully shoot the bad guy with the gun, the cops show up and see you, the good guy, with a gun with a bunch of people who have been shot? Are they going to stop and allow you to explain that you are the good guy with the gun who just killed the bad guy?

I’ve been finding the arguments in support of good guys with guns to be lacking in complexity. It is not as straightforward as a good guy with a gun and for some reason people either can’t see that, or they refuse to see that because they are afraid that admitting a complexity will bring them one step closer to losing their guns 

Post # 33
Member
4737 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: October 2017

Tisa85 :  a man was shot and killed for texting in a movie theater during previews. He was texting, someone confronted him, the texter threw popcorn at the person confronting him, then the texter was shot and killed by the person who confronted him.

Curtis Reeves was the shooter, a retired police officer if anyone feels like googling the case 

Post # 34
Member
1974 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: May 2016 - Sussex, UK

Twizbe :  Yes, this is the case. They are easily moved from state to state.

I think we’ve had the gun control discussion on here many many times now. Gun owners seem to think they have magical powers to get to their gun safe if someone breaks in the middle of the night. Good luck with that.

I felt that after Sandy Hook if nothing changed then it never will. A mass shooting nearly everyday should not be the norm. If we have strict gun controls here (UK), Australia has them and now NZ’s will be stricter still then logic would dictate that it’s because of the gun control that we don’t have regular mass shootings. Could argue this one with the “I deserve my gun” masses until we’re blue in the face but it won’t change anything.

Post # 35
Member
677 posts
Busy bee

Savvy.machelle :  Assault is an action not a verb.

What the fuck does that even mean, and what does it have to do with anything??

Post # 36
Member
8946 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper

Westwood :  Actually the buy back only cost taxpayers a little over $367m, well under the estimated budget of $500m. People actually handed back weapons seeking no compensation at all. And $63m of that money was spent on administration and disposal of the weapons surrendered. Even criminals handed in weapons.

And it was extremely simple to cover the cost. They raised one tax (medicare)  by 0.2% for a period of one year.

But the US could easily do it out of their defence budget. I mean after all it is in the name of fighting terrorism.

But I guess it is easier to throw your hands in the air and cry but we can’t do that here rather than actually look at evidence and thought out solutions.

 

Data source https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2017/June/National_Firearms_Amnesty

 

Post # 37
Member
7084 posts
Busy Beekeeper

missviolet92 :  our country is full of deeply ignorant people who curl themselves up in ‘Merica propoganda and think we’re the greatest country on earth. We are not. Not even close.

Post # 38
Member
153 posts
Blushing bee

Savvy.machelle :  Assault is an action not a verb

A verb indicates an action. Assault is a noun. To assault is a verb. 

 

techmom :  yea, I have no clue either lol

Post # 39
Member
75 posts
Worker bee
  • Wedding: August 2019

Just wanted to say I’m an American and I’m completely embarassed by our gun laws. I’m a teacher and having students actually scared for their lives is the norm now. We have had so many threats of a shooting that students and parents are afraid to send their kids to public school (and I teach in an afflunt suburban area). It breaks my heart. 

Post # 40
Member
1042 posts
Bumble bee

If the police in the UK can do their jobs without needing a gun then why the hell would average American citizen need one? 

I find it so baffling that people genuinely feel like they need guns to be safe. There is irrefutable evidence that guns make people less safe, the more guns = more murders, less guns = less murders, this cannot be disputed, the evidence is there from multiple studies and countries. 

I wish people would just be honest and say “I don’t care that guns are dangerous and increase the murder rate, I like having them”. Rather than bollocks like “I need a gun to be protect myself” “I need a gun to be safe”. Also, wtf are people talking about saying they need guns to protect themselves from the government?! In what situation are you expecting to open fire at government workers??! 

Post # 41
Member
3987 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: August 2012

Savvy.machelle :  i hate to break it to you, but if the government decides to infringe on people’s rights,  a bunch of civilians with guns aren’t going to be able to stop them. 

Post # 42
Member
755 posts
Busy bee

Honestly, this may be hard to hear, but it’s a privilege to not have to actively think about self-defense. Most of us can go to a grocery store without having to worry about getting mugged or becoming a victim of a terror attack, but frankly it’s a false sense of security. Laws can’t stop lawbreakers. Monsters will always act monstrously. In the case of the NZ terror attack, the dirtbag admitted that he would’ve used any means necessary but chose guns because he knew it’d get more attention and make a political impact. If he couldn’t get a gun, the attack still would’ve happened, he just would’ve used bombs, or knives, or fire, etc. You cannot ever prevent this stuff entirely. 

The Linwood mosque shooting that same day only had 7 victims compared to the 41 at Christchurch (unsure about the last 2 victims). I believe a big factor in the drastic difference in victim count was that Linwood victim(s) aggressively defended themselves (throwing things at the attacker, chasing him, one report said someone shot back..? Not sure if that last bit was ever confirmed)…they’re lucky that was all it took to call his bluff, because it just as easily couldn’t have. 

Mass shootings almost always happen in places with the least likelihood of people defending themselves, primarily gun-free zones like schools or liberal anti-gun states. That’s not to say gun violence will drop or end if there are more guns in the hands of good people, but there would be less people having to face cuddling in a corner at the mercy of mad gunman because their krav maga classes will do them no good. If there are just two trained people with guns on opposite ends of a room that a mass shooter walks in to, the murderer wouldn’t be walking out of there and taking more victims. 

NZ is fortunate enough to be an island without any shared borders. Gun control may actually be realistic there, since smuggling will be much more difficult. The USA isn’t quite so fortunate, and if the same people who are trying to ban guns also want open borders, we’ll really be screwed. If illegal drugs can (and are) pour through our southern border, there’s no reason why guns won’t. Any scum nugget who wants a gun will still be able to get one, easily. But there won’t be any good people to stop them before it’s way too late. 

I wish we could expect the best from everyone, but we can’t. I wish banning guns would stop these catastrophes, but it won’t. Frankly it’s a bit delusional to think the world could ever be safe from malicious violence. We will always have to face fight or flight, but if we’re all limited to bringing rocks to a gun fight, our only realistic option will be flight, and that’s no way to live. Everyone should have the right and the appropriate means to protect themselves. 

Post # 43
Member
7398 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: October 2014

 

The reason this is such an issue in America is because the gun industry (which includes all the anciallry products like ammo, shooting ranges, holsters, gun shows, etc) is incredibly lucrative, and regulation means loss of profit to some very wealthy people. Rather than change their product lines, they’ve bought politicians, mainly through the NRA and various shadow PAC’s, and the politicians protect the gun industry.  

for many years, the Centers for Disease Control has been prohibited from studying gun violence in the context of public health and safety; the CDC studies all other health and safety threats ranging from alcoholism to zikka to domestic violence, so why not guns? Because Congress says so, that’s why.  And the politicians also control the types of material kids are taught in school, which ensures the next generation of Americans has its share of gun worshippers.  It’s pretty disturbing to see the lengths to which a small percentage of this nation will go to, to protect the profitability of a dying industry (because the biggest threat to the gun industry is the aging of the Baby Boomers, not gun reform, but no one in the industry wants to admit it…)

By The Way as for all the second amendment arguments:

-You can always make more amendments. That’s kind of the point of having amendments. So 2A is not set in stone and shouldn’t be treated as if it is.

-I sure hope the 2A fanatics who are framing themselves as constitutional scholars feel equally passionate about the 24th Amendment, which is being violated at every election cycle (looking at you, Florida)

-Come back when your militia is actually well-regulated.

 

 

Sansa85 :  Even if Alex Jones is not on traditional radio/TV, he’s still able to produce his show and distribute it on his own website, meaning he’s still spreading his bullshit far and wide.  He’s a particularly tricky case because he doesn’t depend on ad revenue; he does a lot of his own merchandising to bring in revenue, meaning you can’t boycott his sponsors in hopes of cutting off his income stream because he doesn’t depend on sponsors. Breitbart is the same way.

Post # 44
Member
278 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: December 2018

As much as I appreciate that NZ has responded so beautifully after one attack, I don’t think this approach would work in the U.S. We have a very different history. Gun ownership meant survival for generations. And while I personally believe that this is outdated, and we ought to come into the 21st century, that is not what is going to happen. The best the U.S. can hope for is stricter background checks, and regualation of people, because “guns don’t kill people; People kill people!” Bipartisian support of regulating people is much more reasonable than expecting bipartisian support of regulating people. It sucks, and its vile, but I really think its the best we can hope for. 

Post # 45
Member
9207 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: August 2012

 j_jaye :  I’m shit at math, but let’s see. So $367 million, and we’ll subtract the $63 million spent on disposal. So $304 million spent on 650,000 guns. That’s…~$467 spent per gun?

393 million guns x $467 = $183,531,000,000  

Let’s just be real, people would lose their fucking minds at that number. It’s not realistic IMO.

The topic ‘Gun control due to terrorism’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors