I was there for the one in Roseburg, Oregon in 2006. The kid that got shot was a friend of mine. I have my doubts about this list, because the Roseburg "school shooting" was nothing more than one idiot shooting another idiot. The fact that it happened at a school was just a coincidence. As I read through the list, I see suicides, arguments that got out of hand, and drug deals gone bad. Again, the fact that they happened at schools was just a coincidence. This list is, at best, misleading.
People are sick, we got that. Given that the majority of these are <3 deaths and <5 wounded I wonder how many would have been carried out regardless of the weapon...I can bet most. Several of these are gang related or targeting specific people. It may be the case that it is easier to shoot someone than anything else, but if you're that hell bent on getting rid of people you're gonna do it somehow.
Apparently deciding whether to enforce a law that says it's a felony to lie on a gun background check is such a difficult thing to do that it not only reached the Supreme Court, but was barely enforced with a 5-4 decision.
I remember back in 2001 when some guys armed with box cutters killed almost three thousand people. Despite that, I can still buy a box cutter at the hardware store store with no questions asked. Make no mistake, people. Gun control is not about keeping you safe. It's about keeping you under control.
Even if we ban guns sickos will still get there hands on them, I don't see the point. Harder to get maybe, but people have there ways
This contention is predicated on a straw man fallacy. Consequently, it is invalid. I specifically referenced violent crime in general, not intentional homicide. Your source, which isn't even properly cited (it is simply a partial screencap, and this is aside from the issue of citing an encyclopedia as a serious source), is a listof intentional homicide rankings. I have already proven above that gun homicides and violence decreased over a 20 year period in the USA. This is in spite of the proliferation of concealed carry permits being issued across the USA and the fact that the ban on "assault weapons" expired in 2004. If guns are responsible for crime, then why did this decrease happen when people have had increased access to firearms? Once again, I am simply seeing an anti-gun claim without any evidence to substantiate it. Where is the evidence that guns in themselves cause such things? There isn't any. Furthermore, when far more people are killed by other means (take the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing as an example), the anti-gun lobby will blame a person (or people) instead of the means the person (or people) used to kill others. Working to eradicate poverty and instating genuine universal healthcare (not the crony capitalist ACA/Obamacare sham) in the United States would be more plausible solutions to address issues of violent crime.
Hm...to be completely honest idk if I agree with that being a felony. A fine or misdemeanor at most sounds reasonable enough. Not everyone lies for malcontent, but it should come with some form of consequences yes. Though, depending on the degree of how much they've lied a felony might be better in some circumstances. Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
Me showing that wasn't anti gun. It was just to show that having guns around will cost lives. If you're okay with that then so be it.
I realized considering your previous posts it isn't anti-gun. However that's a rather black and white interpretation of again, raw numbers. The circumstances surrounding these conflicts are not that detailed just that the offender(s) have mental illness, or involved with gang violence, or just some screwed up hatred for X people. Aside from perhaps the scale of the mass shootings, you cannot conclude decisively any of these smaller events could have been prevented just by guns not being a thing. I'm not trying to argue, but that's the fallacy I am seeing here. Raw numbers are usually shown in threads like this just shock people (not your intent but usually that's how they're used), and not really show anything other than how many F-ed people exist in this country. Just how I see it. There have been several individuals when I was in high school, over the years, who have threatened to stab, beat, and yes shoot the principal. Thankfully none happened, but it's my thoughts that depending how far gone you are in your mind it won't matter what tool is in your hand. I don't discount that guns won't cause a higher death toll in mass attacks of public areas, but we should learn more about spotting warning signs in people and more proactive solutions instead of brandishing the past around. Not that I'm saying you are doing this, but how these events are presented in the media for example is just disgusting. Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
I haven't read the rest of this topic, but I'm pretty well decided on gun control, and I'll just post my thoughts in bullet points: Gun control does not mean no guns any more than anger management means never getting angry. We shouldn't remove guns from citizens entirely, because criminals will have them anyway. We have no benefit to gain from doing so. To say that citizens can't have guns at all because of deadly accidents is to say that citizens can't have kitchen knives or cars at all because of deadly accidents. We should still be working to reduce these numbers of deadly accidents regardless of their current number. People often presume that "gun control" solely refers to state and federal laws. It doesn't. Gun control is a responsibility of everyone at every level. The individual, the retailer, the province/state/license board, and on the federal level. Everyone. Gun control includes an individual adult ensuring his weapons are NOT found and handled by children, and no law is going to have any effect on that. Guns need to be controlled to some extent for the simple reason that control is a meager inconvenience for responsible use and a major inconvenience for irresponsible use. We will never completely stop irresponsible gun use, but efforts towards gun control will make it happen less often and therefore should still be applied. Criminals performing petty crime with small hand guns are often cowards unskilled with their firearms, but this is not reliable. One of the individual's responsibilities of gun control is identifying whether the criminal is likely to return fire or not and potentially choosing not to draw. Individuals should be required to earn licenses for gun categories, and be applicable to lose those licenses, the same way that we are required to earn licenses for vehicle categories.
Well said, I have much to add to this thread but your post calmed me down, (Guns don't kill people, people do) Its our human right to defend our self, if the government can have Guns, the people better also have them, Too many times, we've seen millions killed by corrupt governments after they first take the Guns. Paralleling History Let’s parallel history with the present ideology and methodology that those in the past blueprinted to implement gun control. Mass murderer Adolf Hitler at a dinner talk on April 11, 1942 said: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.” Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. Josef Stalin, the sole leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1953, said: “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.” In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Mao Tze Tung, communist dictator of China said: “War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.” China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Idi Amin, president of Uganda from 1971 to 1979, said: "I do not want to be controlled by any superpower. I myself consider myself the most powerful figure in the world, and that is why I do not let any superpower control me." Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Pol Pot, who created in Cambodia one of the 20th century's most brutal and radical regimes, was responsible for killing one million of his own ‘educated,’ yet unarmed citizens. To my shame the government has already took the Guns of the free range slaves in my country, I say don't let it happen to you, the USA is one of the last strong holds of freedom, even if your government is controlled and corrupt. What happened when they took the Guns in the UK and Australia???????? the crime rate has gone through the roof, people once left their doors open in my country, them days are long gone, Australia is the biggest filth, when they took the Guns the real Crocodile Dundee wouldn't give up his Gun, So the Australian government sent a team of Armed police out in to the bush, and shot him dead.
