(Closed) Gun control due to terrorism

posted 7 months ago in The Lounge
Post # 91
Member
1361 posts
Bumble bee

zzar45 :   I have never once hear people rage against drink driving being banned.  

There was demonization of MADD back in the 80’s as they fought hard for drunk driving legislation.  Their efforts were a huge success as drunk driving accidents & injuries/fatalities greatly declined and it’s the accepted norm now but there was definitely resistance to it at the time.  

Post # 92
Member
5556 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: July 2018

sweetdee89 :  Reality of it is, the US won’t do anything about it anytime soon. If after Sandyhook nothing was done where children died, nothing will happen soon.

I’m still for the right to bear arms

The things you are saying are a really bizarre contradiction.  You act like it is the government who won’t do anything after something like Sandyhook, yet you say you want the right to bear arms and for everyone in your office to carry a gun.   

Nothing will change because you are supporting the policy, not because of corruption or the US being an island or being slow to adopt policy, because you support it! 

Post # 93
Member
4035 posts
Honey bee

 

[Violation of TOS]

Post # 94
Member
456 posts
Helper bee

sweetdee89 : Another example for you – if a shooter were to come into my work and we had open carry, said shooter could be gunned down before anyone got hurt or prevent mass casualties.

You’re more likely to shoot your coworkers in a panic than to calmly disable the mythical attacker.

Post # 95
Member
658 posts
Busy bee

zzar45 :  The government is the one who makes the laws, not me. I’m not out there rallying and shouting. You can have the right to bear arms with strict gun laws. It’s not a contradiction.

What if one of those teachers had a gun at Sandyhook? That’s where my mentality is. But yet again, all this is hypothetical.

As a PP mentioned, the gun companies pay off politicians which trickles into the president.

Post # 96
Member
658 posts
Busy bee

hampsterdance :  That’s your assumption. Again, all this is hypothetical. It’s just a different perspective.

Post # 97
Member
7413 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: October 2014

sweetdee89 :  You said: “another example for you – if a shooter were to come into my work and we had open carry, said shooter could be gunned down before anyone got hurt or prevent mass casualties.”

And then the cops would show up and see your oh-so-heroic co-worker with a gun, and shoot him/her, because cops have no way of telling the good-guy-with-a-gun from the bad-guy-with-a-gun.  Because statistically that’s actually quite likely. You’re far more likely to be murdered by the rampage killer or hit by friendly fire (including police fire) than you are to be the hero who takes down the bad guy and saves the day.

Here’s a useful article based on actual research: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evd4we/the-good-guy-with-a-gun-theory-debunked

An interesting excerpt:

“…states that made it easier for their citizens to go armed in public had higher levels of non-fatal violent crime than those states that restricted the right to carry.”

Specifically with regard to Texas:

 

“… ten years after the Lone Star State put right to carry into effect, violent crime was more than 16 percent higher than it would have been without that law…

The only difference between projections using the pro-gun scholars’ preferred variables and the other two panels came when singling out murder. The highest purpose of the armed citizen, in the rationale of the NRA and gun sellers, is to subdue or incapacitate marauding psychopaths before the killers can take innocent lives. But when the Stanford team ran the pro-gun researchers’ formulas, the graphs showed that right-to-carry laws actually propped up homicide rates.”

Post # 98
Member
7413 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: October 2014

wildflowerz :  Predictably, the automotive industry lobbyists were one of the driving forces behind the resistence to MADD, because the auto industry didn’t want to open themselves up to any liability for the damage people did with their products, and because they didn’t want to yeild market share to alternative forms of transport. Tighter driving laws = fewer people driving = fewer cars to sell. 

Post # 99
Member
658 posts
Busy bee

 

Horseradish :  Well thank you for providing facts behind that. It seems my understanding of it is incorrect regarding open carry. I have no problem admitting that.

I still stand by that not all guns should be banned – but of course stricter gun laws.

Post # 100
Member
5556 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: July 2018

sweetdee89 :  I don’t know in what world “strict gun laws” doesn’t contradict everyone in your work carrying a gun while doing an office job? The right to bear arms and strict gun laws absolutely is a contradiction because the mere fact that so many people have guns is why they are so easy for people to get hold of them.  

What if one of those teachers had a gun at Sandyhook? That’s where my mentality is. But yet again, all this is hypothetical.

What is the shooter couldn’t just have easy access to a gun? That’s where my mentality is. Isn’t that the easiest hypothetical?

If the teacher had a gun at Sandyhook then there would probably be several kids killed long before the mass shooting due to accidents or negligence.  So there is no money for schools, there is no money for a gun amnesty but there is money to train every teacher in the country with gun safety?  Isn’t it just easier to make it incredibly difficult for the would be shooter to access a gun? Genuine non sarcastic question, I just struggle to understand why that wouldn’t be easier?  

If it was much more difficult to obtain a gun then there would be literally no argument for teachers to need them, or moms to bring them to the grocery store, or your co workers to bring them to work. 

Post # 101
Member
658 posts
Busy bee

zzar45 :  You obviously didn’t see my response to Horseradish who provided factual statements and article regarding open carry.

Post # 102
Member
192 posts
Blushing bee

American politicians are paid off by gun lobbyists.

Post # 103
Member
6805 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: April 2016

hampsterdance :   sweetdee89 :  I actually saw something on tv about this a few years ago. It was a simulation where there was an active shooter inside a school (college campus) and they placed a man in the classroom with a gun. This man was highly trained and KNEW he was participating in an active shooter drill. And yet he still was not able to respond in time to make it so that no one got shot or hurt. If I remember correctly he was able to kill/shoot the attacker, but the attacker also got off quite a few shots first. And the “good guy with a gun” accidentally shot a person running from the attacker as well. Ugh, I wish I could remember where I saw this. It was probably like an installment on 60 minutes or something. 

The point is, this whole “good guy with a gun” scenario doesn’t mean no one gets hurt/killed. I hate that argument. As if anyone knows exactly how they’d respond in that type of situation. 

Post # 104
Member
1981 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: May 2016 - Sussex, UK

hampsterdance :  Exactly!

I was talking to my coworker about this. He and his wife were in the Israeli army (drafted) and he was saying that they had to sleep with guns under their pillows. Unless you are constantly primed for an attack at any second then it’s unlikely you will be alert enough to defend yourself and everyone around you. You can’t be on high alert every second of every day as the adrenaline would be too much. The argument drives me nuts that people want to keep their family safe so they have a gun locked in storage ready to go and get when there is an intruder. Very very unlikely that there would be time.

Post # 105
Member
658 posts
Busy bee

llevinso :  thank you for that example as well. I can see how my understanding of the good guy with a gun is flawed and incorrect.

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

Find Amazing Vendors