17 Dead in Florida. GOP does nothing.

[ProudModerate2]

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.

LOL.
We are "ignoring the real issue?"
The real issue is GUNS.

[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.

[Joey1996]

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.

[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.

[parochial boy]

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.

[Karpatsky]

I think a lot of people are missing the point. Guns are the bulk of the problem. I say this as someone who loves to go with friends or relatives to the range. Shooting is great, even cathartic. I think that the Second Amendment ought to stay intact as it is.

But there needs to be more regulation. When this is how law enforcement traces guns used in crimes, when we block the CDC from researching gun violence, when we ignore the problem and deflect, deflect, deflect...we're doing nothing to address the issue. Planting our heads in the sand is a surefire way to get nothing done.

It's not just mass shootings, either. Gun crime is rampant across this country, in disparate localities and different communities. Are we to believe that this is simply the cost of doing business? Are we really going to ignore the issue staring us in the face?

There are measures that can be taken to reduce gun violence. Gun control is necessary. We needn't abolish the Second Amendment or confiscate all firearms to fix the problem; we just need to be honest with ourselves and realize that guns are part of problem.

Precisely.

Yeah, I think a lot of the hatred around this issue is because politicians on both sides find it expedient to exaggerate the position of the other side - liberals want to take away your guns, conservatives don't care about kids, etc.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think it's also time that there really was a boys/men's movement.  Do not conflate this with the feminist movement... but a movement that confronts and redefines masculinity by, of, and for men and boys.  This touches on societal problems like sexual identity, bullying, expectations, mens' roles in family, work, and the community at large.

Men are lost.  Toxic masculinity is killing people and breaking even more.  

We also need to address poverty, social mobility, financial security... things that when addressed properly, lead to much less desperation which leads to much fewer acts of desperation.  Coupled with a much bigger focus on mental health, I think it would greatly reduce the desire to harm others.

That with good gun control should solve the problem.  That's so much easier said that done.

[Devout Centrist]

I think it's also time that there really was a boys/men's movement.  Do not conflate this with the feminist movement... but a movement that confronts and redefines masculinity by, of, and for men and boys.  This touches on societal problems like sexual identity, bullying, expectations, mens' roles in family, work, and the community at large.

Men are lost.  Toxic masculinity is killing people and breaking even more.  

We also need to address poverty, social mobility, financial security... things that when addressed properly, lead to much less desperation which leads to much fewer acts of desperation.  Coupled with a much bigger focus on mental health, I think it would greatly reduce the desire to harm others.

That with good gun control should solve the problem.  That's so much easier said that done.

Yes, this is an excellent point that rarely gets brought up after tragedies like this. I would love to see someone spearhead this.

[Joey1996]

100 years ago, the left saw the ills of alcohol-related domestic abuse and alcohol addiction and our response was to completely ban the manufacturing, sale and transportation of liquor. That was obviously a terrible idea that led to the proliferation of organized crime. Once we finally realized that regulation was the answer it was too late.

Now the left wants to ban guns without taking into account how that would increase our already largest-in-the-world incarceration rate, or how those laws would disproporationately target black and brown gun owners much like our drug laws. So I'll say it again, reasonable but stricter gun regulation (and a war on poverty) is the solution here.

[America Needs R'hllor]

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.

[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.

[Santander]

Every freedom comes with a cost. Allowing people to drink will lead to more alcoholism and alcohol-related deaths. Allowing people to drive will lead to more fatal car accidents. Allowing people to have guns will lead to more gun deaths. This is just a fact. The question is, what is your appetite for bearing the cost of freedom?

Deep down, most people don't really care about "regular" gun murders or suicides, they only care about mass shootings, especially school shootings, because of how emotionally traumatic and public those events are. Now, no politician would openly admit that people are generally so cold and aloof that they only care about murders in their country if they can see them, but I will say it like I see it.

Solving the "problem" of gun violence is irrelevant, because it is invisible to the vast majority of people. So I'm convinced that the best solution, cynical as it may be, is to mitigate against mass shootings through legislating access control, better-designed public buildings and spaces, more robust background checks (including enforcing laws on the books), etc. and gun control will die as an issue.

[America Needs R'hllor]

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.

Ok, but how is an approach that worked literally everyone unrealistic and based on emotions? If anything, the American Gun Culture approach is based on emotions and beliefs.

[ProudModerate2]

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.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Don't know if this was posted yet but looks like Rick Scott wants the FBI director to resign.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingnews/florida-governor-calls-for-fbi-director-to-resign/ar-BBJdYTy?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

[KingSweden]

I think it's also time that there really was a boys/men's movement.  Do not conflate this with the feminist movement... but a movement that confronts and redefines masculinity by, of, and for men and boys.  This touches on societal problems like sexual identity, bullying, expectations, mens' roles in family, work, and the community at large.

Men are lost.  Toxic masculinity is killing people and breaking even more.  

We also need to address poverty, social mobility, financial security... things that when addressed properly, lead to much less desperation which leads to much fewer acts of desperation.  Coupled with a much bigger focus on mental health, I think it would greatly reduce the desire to harm others.

That with good gun control should solve the problem.  That's so much easier said that done.

Unfortunately, necessary as it is, this sort of thing is easily hijacked by neckbeard MRAs and edgelord dudebros.

[Joey1996]

Don't know if this was posted yet but looks like Rick Scott wants the FBI director to resign.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingnews/florida-governor-calls-for-fbi-director-to-resign/ar-BBJdYTy?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

Saw that, pot calling the kettle black. Rick Scott is a big NRA stooge

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Don't know if this was posted yet but looks like Rick Scott wants the FBI director to resign.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingnews/florida-governor-calls-for-fbi-director-to-resign/ar-BBJdYTy?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

Saw that, pot calling the kettle black. Rick Scott is a big NRA stooge

And a criminal.

[afleitch]

I think it's also time that there really was a boys/men's movement.  Do not conflate this with the feminist movement.

If it's not hand in glove with the feminist movement in having shared falues then it's against it. And that's ultimately toxic.

[kcguy]

So I'm convinced that the best solution, cynical as it may be, is to mitigate against mass shootings through legislating access control, better-designed public buildings and spaces. . .

I'm not sure I understand this sentence.

Are you saying you want more means of escape, or do you want to limit the number of entrances to provide more control over who enters and exits?

And are you calling for more security guards?  I know county courthouses tend to have metal detectors, but we don't have them at cinemas and shopping malls like (I think) they do in Israel.  Is this what you had in mind?

Having worked in architecture, I know that the biggest thing currently controlling building design is fire evacuation.  The goal is to have a large number of exits spread evenly around the building.  Having fewer entrances isn't necessarily in conflict with the above goal, but it does complicate things quite a bit.

[KingSweden]

I think it's also time that there really was a boys/men's movement.  Do not conflate this with the feminist movement.

If it's not hand in glove with the feminist movement in having shared falues then it's against it. And that's ultimately toxic.

Define shared values, though. We’ve done a poor job, as a society, creating space for men outside of “traditional” gender roles the way feminism has done for women. Now there are a lot of feminists who to their credit think that such an endeavor is important, so I don’t see how foregrounding that is inherently toxic as opposed to the whiny nonsense of the MRA crowd.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Guns are a dangerous liability. Toddlers kill more people in the United States than foreign terrorists. Having teachers armed? Be prepared for more of this, only with injuries and death: http://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-3rd-grader-fires-police-officers-gun-school/story?id=52866888

A firearm in a home is more likely to be used against you than to defend you.

And you know what? I'd rather let a burglar take my stuff than murder him. I have insurance. Items can be replaced. That life cannot. And the actual lives of children being shot up at school who now are dead are worth a hell of a lot more than my TV in the very unlikely and theoretical situation of a burglary.

When a burglar encounters a homeowner, that homeowner (or his/her spouse and/or child(ren) becomes more than just victims; they become WITNESSES to a crime whose testimony could well send the perpetrator to prison for decades, depending on circumstances.  What's the chances an armed burglar wants to leave witnesses?

I'm well aware of the issues of gun ownership and the issues that arise when it becomes necessary to defend yourself or others.  I'm well aware of the need to assess the background when you're firing at a target.  I'm well aware about the difference between cover and concealment.  I'm very aware of the issue of weapon retention, and how a perpetrator can use your gun against you.  I don't wish to kill anyone, but if an intruder broke into my house and posed a viable threat to my family (indeed, merely being IN my house is a viable threat), I will not have remorse for the action I take in defending my family.  I certainly hope such a day never comes, but if it does, I want to do all I can to make sure that my family is unharmed.

Lions don't eat tigers, and they don't eat tiger cubs.  They eat more passive prey.  One of the reason burglars act with the impunity they do is their belief that the home dweller they prey on will be unarmed and unprepared.  I'm not some kind of unreconstructed Mountain Man, but I'm not going to meekly surrender my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms just because of the behavior of other folks.  That starts with individual responsibility.  Perhaps we can start by stop blaming "the GOP" and start blaming the shooter who carried out the crime.  Doing so may bring folks to a more rational viewpoint that might actually cause progress to be made.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think it's also time that there really was a boys/men's movement.  Do not conflate this with the feminist movement.

If it's not hand in glove with the feminist movement in having shared falues then it's against it. And that's ultimately toxic.

Cooperation and shared values are a given... but I get a little nervous with "if you're not with us (whatever that means), then you're against us."  That's what is so toxic.  

Who decides who is with or against the feminist movement?  Who decides what the values of feminism are that a men's movement has to share?  The only part that seems straight forward is cooperation.  But the task is to bring men and boys into the 21st century and redefine masculinity into a positive force in society.  This will necessarily not be a woman-led effort.  Any more than white people will lead blacks to equality or men will lead women to equality.

[Bojack Horseman]

At this point, I hope the prosecutors in Florida will let Cruz plead guilty and take his 17 life sentences so that the families don't have to go through a trial. If this goes to trial, he will almost certainly have no other option than to mount an insanity defense, which will turn into a circus.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Honestly my gut says he hangs himself in his cell before Easter.