17 Dead in Florida. GOP does nothing.

[fhtagn]

You know, this applies in many scenarios, but in this scenario especially: there were very clear signs that this guy had issues. He posted on social media his desire to harm people. He was expelled from the school for disciplinary issues. Those who knew him spoke of him as a loner, and a weird kid. Focusing on guns takes away from the real issue that we had something very preventable if others had actually stepped in to help this guy, be it teachers, parents/guardians, friends, etc. We should be focusing on who is failing these people, and how. The gun clearly isn't the problem.

[fhtagn]

The gun clearly isn't the problem.

Of course the easy access to guns is the problem. At least 50% of the overall problem here.

A person who has significant psychological and aggression problems will think twice about going on a rampage if his only tools available are a knife or a screwdriver.

An [automatic, high-capacity] gun or rifle will always significantly lower this hurdle in the head of the perpetrator.

And in this way, the US stands out as a unique negative example ...

When you consider the fact that mass shootings such as these could easily be avoided if people paid attention to those around them when there are clear warning signs and worked with them to get the help they need, the gun is irrelevant. You can talk about access to guns all you want, but it doesn't matter. It does nothing to solve the actual problems that lead to someone wanting to kill a bunch of people.

[fhtagn]

Incredibly proud of every surviving student who has taken the oppurtunity to tell Republicans that they are rancid monsters on live TV and social media.

The GOP are rancid monsters and it makes me proud the youth are standing up to them.

Get off your moral high horse.  You used to be a Republican.

Yeah a brainwashed one, and am glad I left that filth.

That sort of hateful thinking is filth.

[fhtagn]

We should repeal the 2nd Amendment, seize everyone's guns and do what Australia did. Ordinary people do not need guns.

If they refuse to give up their guns and pose a threat to the army/police they should be labeled as traitors to America and charged with treason, and if they fire their weapons, then all means necessary should be used to stop them.

I cannot begin to tell you how offensive these ideas are.

The millions of lawful, law-abiding gun owners, of which I am one, are not the problem here.  Never have been.  Never will be. 

Vast numbers of guns in public hands poses a threat to society. Therefore, the government has an obligation to use its powers of eminent domain to purchace guns, by force if necessary, for the betterment of society.

100% guarantee that will not end the way you think it will.

[fhtagn]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

Hunting.

If you're going to ban rifles you might as well ban handguns too because they're equally efficient at mass killings. Las Vegas is the only incident I can think of where the use of rifles made a difference.

Haha

Anyone who hunts with a semi-automatic weapon is a loser. Seriously, how bad at hunting do you need to be to have a weapon that assists you in any way? If you need one of those to hunt, you shouldn't be allowed to go hunting because you're already probably a tremendous failure at it.

Please tell us what experience you have with hunting, especially for large game that can actually kill you if you aren't careful.
 

[fhtagn]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

Hunting.

If you're going to ban rifles you might as well ban handguns too because they're equally efficient at mass killings. Las Vegas is the only incident I can think of where the use of rifles made a difference.

Haha

Anyone who hunts with a semi-automatic weapon is a loser. Seriously, how bad at hunting do you need to be to have a weapon that assists you in any way? If you need one of those to hunt, you shouldn't be allowed to go hunting because you're already probably a tremendous failure at it.

Please tell us what experience you have with hunting, especially for large game that can actually kill you if you aren't careful.
 

This is a sentiment I've heard from pretty much every recreational and/or subsistence hunter who I have ever engaged with on the subject. As for me, I have zero interest in ever hunting so I actually have no dog in this fight (and am agnostic on certain types of gun control). I'm just here to rustle your jimmies. If you guys want to go hunting with an semi, be my guest, just know there are whole communities of sportsmen who think you're a weenie.

Kids these days with their fancy technology, right? I for one never use these fancy 'bicycles' or 'cars' to get places. As for hunting, I don't know why anyone should need anything more than a crudely sharpened stick - if you're not chasing game dozens of kilometers across the savanna to tire it out before the kill, you shouldn't be hunting at all!

My man. Glad we're on the same page here 👌

Funny that you seem to be speaking about entire communities that you are not a part of, and only know a small handful of folks who are a part of them.

Uneducated, delusional lefties who know nothing about guns and hunting really have no business speaking about it. Take your Clozapine and move on.

[fhtagn]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

Hunting.

If you're going to ban rifles you might as well ban handguns too because they're equally efficient at mass killings. Las Vegas is the only incident I can think of where the use of rifles made a difference.

Haha

Anyone who hunts with a semi-automatic weapon is a loser. Seriously, how bad at hunting do you need to be to have a weapon that assists you in any way? If you need one of those to hunt, you shouldn't be allowed to go hunting because you're already probably a tremendous failure at it.

Please tell us what experience you have with hunting, especially for large game that can actually kill you if you aren't careful.
 

This is a sentiment I've heard from pretty much every recreational and/or subsistence hunter who I have ever engaged with on the subject. As for me, I have zero interest in ever hunting so I actually have no dog in this fight (and am agnostic on certain types of gun control). I'm just here to rustle your jimmies. If you guys want to go hunting with an semi, be my guest, just know there are whole communities of sportsmen who think you're a weenie.

Kids these days with their fancy technology, right? I for one never use these fancy 'bicycles' or 'cars' to get places. As for hunting, I don't know why anyone should need anything more than a crudely sharpened stick - if you're not chasing game dozens of kilometers across the savanna to tire it out before the kill, you shouldn't be hunting at all!

My man. Glad we're on the same page here 👌

Funny that you seem to be speaking about entire communities that you are not a part of, and only know a small handful of folks who are a part of them.

Uneducated, delusional lefties who know nothing about guns and hunting really have no business speaking about it. Take your Clozapine and move on.

I love how hunting becomes the major, fateful issue, rather than dozens of school shootings every year. But oh, sure, be comfortable with your hunting... the murdered teenagers can wait.

These guns are used A LOT more in hunting and recreational shooting and not harming people than they are in mass shootings. Clearly the gun isn't the issue.

[fhtagn]

Sorry, but this is a disappointingly flawed argument.

You just don't like that a valid argument doesn't fit your narrative.

[fhtagn]

Sorry, but this is a disappointingly flawed argument.

You just don't like that a valid argument doesn't fit your narrative.

...No, it just doesn't make any sense. Like, 0 sense. Saying X is not the problem because it's also used for good purposes is not a valid argument when X is used by people in the only western country X is easily accessed to do dozens of shootings a year.
Let me be honest- when arguing with your side (cultural conservatives) about various issues, even abortion, I sometimes struggle to find counter arguments. But this gun debate is the easiest one of them all- I'm serious when I say that I found no logical or challenging argument out of any of the anti-gun control arguments in this thread thus far. The only ones that might make sense are Joey's, and he only opposes one specific measure that I support.

Well for starters, I'm not a cultural conservative. But nice try.

And what I am saying is looking at facts. The vast majority of these guns you hate aren't used for a purpose that involves killing humans, especially in America. So to blame them for mass shootings because they were used in a small handful of events is just plain silly and ignores the truth. If you take away this particular "type" of gun, you do nothing to stop someone who has decided they wanted to harm a large number of people from actually doing it. They'll just find another way. And then we are back to square one again because you're ignoring the real issue.

[fhtagn]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

Hunting.

If you're going to ban rifles you might as well ban handguns too because they're equally efficient at mass killings. Las Vegas is the only incident I can think of where the use of rifles made a difference.

Haha

Anyone who hunts with a semi-automatic weapon is a loser. Seriously, how bad at hunting do you need to be to have a weapon that assists you in any way? If you need one of those to hunt, you shouldn't be allowed to go hunting because you're already probably a tremendous failure at it.

Please tell us what experience you have with hunting, especially for large game that can actually kill you if you aren't careful.
 

This is a sentiment I've heard from pretty much every recreational and/or subsistence hunter who I have ever engaged with on the subject. As for me, I have zero interest in ever hunting so I actually have no dog in this fight (and am agnostic on certain types of gun control). I'm just here to rustle your jimmies. If you guys want to go hunting with an semi, be my guest, just know there are whole communities of sportsmen who think you're a weenie.

Kids these days with their fancy technology, right? I for one never use these fancy 'bicycles' or 'cars' to get places. As for hunting, I don't know why anyone should need anything more than a crudely sharpened stick - if you're not chasing game dozens of kilometers across the savanna to tire it out before the kill, you shouldn't be hunting at all!

My man. Glad we're on the same page here 👌

Funny that you seem to be speaking about entire communities that you are not a part of, and only know a small handful of folks who are a part of them.

Uneducated, delusional lefties who know nothing about guns and hunting really have no business speaking about it. Take your Clozapine and move on.

I love how hunting becomes the major, fateful issue, rather than dozens of school shootings every year. But oh, sure, be comfortable with your hunting... the murdered teenagers can wait.

These guns are used A LOT more in hunting and recreational shooting and not harming people than they are in mass shootings. Clearly the gun isn't the issue.

Not all guns are used in deadly school shootings, but all deadly school shootings use guns.  Specifically, certain kinds of guns.

I'm comfortable with forcing indigenous peoples and others to use more primitive guns to hunt with very strict regulations and quotas for these more dangerous guns.  Like each native community gets so many permits and the guns are doled out when someone is going hunting in places with high polar bear populations, for example.  Then the gun is returned, or you are arrested.

The hunting argument is no longer valid, because we found a workaround. 

So really what is your argument here?  Because I doubt what I said above has convinced you to change your mind.  Instead, I think you just want to be able to own and shoot these guns and deflect responsibility and blame for deadly school shootings anywhere else so you don't lose that convenient access to your hobby.

What you are suggesting is wasting taxpayer dollars on a program that absolutely cannot work, and forcing more people in prison over silly regulations that serve no real purpose. 

I thought you folks actually cared about wanting to reduce the incarceration rate, not make it worse?

[fhtagn]

Sorry, but this is a disappointingly flawed argument.

You just don't like that a valid argument doesn't fit your narrative.

...No, it just doesn't make any sense. Like, 0 sense. Saying X is not the problem because it's also used for good purposes is not a valid argument when X is used by people in the only western country X is easily accessed to do dozens of shootings a year.
Let me be honest- when arguing with your side (cultural conservatives) about various issues, even abortion, I sometimes struggle to find counter arguments. But this gun debate is the easiest one of them all- I'm serious when I say that I found no logical or challenging argument out of any of the anti-gun control arguments in this thread thus far. The only ones that might make sense are Joey's, and he only opposes one specific measure that I support.

Well for starters, I'm not a cultural conservative. But nice try.

And what I am saying is looking at facts. The vast majority of these guns you hate aren't used for a purpose that involves killing humans, especially in America. So to blame them for mass shootings because they were used in a small handful of events is just plain silly and ignores the truth. If you take away this particular "type" of gun, you do nothing to stop someone who has decided they wanted to harm a large number of people from actually doing it. They'll just find another way. And then we are back to square one again because you're ignoring the real issue.

And what are the real issues? Does America have a larger population of madmen? Are Americans somehow genetically prompted to go and use guns for mass shootings? Why is this a big problem only in your country, if not because the rest of us have gun control?
And I'm aware that banning a particular type of gun won't solve the problem. I'm for many different measures of gun control, such as the ones Joey listed. My argument for banning assault rifles is just that this is a military weapon not meant for civilians, and there is no reason to require that when there are handguns\non-automatic hunting rifles. It only causes additional danger and makes no sense.
And btw, I'm not for "putting more people in prison" or taking away guns from people. Those who already own guns... well, there's nothing the government can do. I very much do not like the thought of police or, god forbid, military breaking into the homes of people and taking away their guns. That's nonsense. All I want is stricter gun control, and that doesn't put people in prison.

You have a guy who gave VERY CLEAR warning signs that he was going to do something like this, and nothing was done to stop it. The same can be said for many other mass shootings and terrorist attacks. But sure, let's blame the gun when it's clearly the fault of the shooter and the incompetent folks who could have stopped this long before getting to the gun part.

And as for your "assault rifles are more dangerous than hunting rifles" bit I'll just quote the explanation that proved you wrong in another thread:

I'm guessing that what the OP meant by "Assault Rifle" simply meant a semi-automatic rifle like an AR-15, which is no more designed to kill large numbers of people than any number of hunting rifles.



For example, one of the guns above may look a lot scarier than the other, but they function the exact same way.

And as for the handguns bit, the vast majority of gun deaths in the US involve handguns, not "assault rifles". So good job proposing something that barely puts a dent in gun deaths.

[fhtagn]

If we ban semis, that means everyone. Cops too. Only the military. It's amazing how many liberals, who call themselves anti police brutality, want these killing machines to stay in the hands of cops, while the black guy next door who just wants to protect his family is disarmed.

Honestly Assault weapons should eventually be banned for everyone including cops. It would better to wind down to handguns, I don't see a reason to disagree with that unless you want militarized weapons on the street.

Semi-automatic rifles are not militarized weapons, and banning them is not reasonable nor does it make any sense, seeing as hand guns are use far more often in mass shootings and gun violence in general. Ban bump stocks and other modifications which covert the semis into full auto.

^ this.

[fhtagn]

You have a guy who gave VERY CLEAR warning signs that he was going to do something like this, and nothing was done to stop it. The same can be said for many other mass shootings and terrorist attacks. But sure, let's blame the gun when it's clearly the fault of the shooter and the incompetent folks who could have stopped this long before getting to the gun part.

And as for your "assault rifles are more dangerous than hunting rifles" bit I'll just quote the explanation that proved you wrong in another thread:

You still haven't come up with a valid reason as to why gun control wouldn't work in the USA when it has worked literally everywhere else in the world where it has been implemented.

You have a situation where people are being killed on a regular basis; not just a very obvious cause, but a very obvious solution as to how to save lives, and yet you look all over the place to try and find a reason as to why guns aren't an insurmountable and unavoidable part of the problem.

Plenty of countries have equally awful records in detection/treatment/prevention when it comes to identifying individuals at risk of causing these sorts of instances - but none of them experience mass shooting with anything like the degree the US does. I mean, this is Occam's razor at it's most basic - if it looks like fish and smells like a fish, it very probably is one.

THIS. You keep deflecting to "you're wrong on this type of gun" or "oh, the FBI was incompetent in this particular instance" but blatantly ignoring the huge elephant in the room- you have so many shootings in your country, and your country only. I honestly always try to see and respect views opposite to mine, but I really can't find any excuse for you here. It's as if you're fine with letting teenagers die, just because you want to stubbornly hold onto your hundreds-of-years obsession with some ancient right to carry items designed to kill things.

No one said we were fine with letting teenagers die.

We just don't like terrible, unrealistic approaches based on emotions that solve nothing.