13 Dead in Shooting in Thousand Oaks California

[o_O.Q]

Hiku said:

 

o_O.Q said: 

people in this thread have mocked the idea that its not guns that kill people but its people that kill people
and to me that just exposes ignorance
the fact of the matter is that if a persons' resolve to kill is strong enough then they'll find some other alternative to harm others if you ban guns

If everyone was allowed to carry nukes, and someone blows half the country away, would you still say "Nukes don't kill people. People kill people."?
No, you would debate if it's reasonable for a civilian to have that kind of weapon.
People criticize that sentence because it's avoiding, or failing to understand, the actual debate, with an inaccurate one-liner.

First of all, the vast majority are asking for sensible gun control. Not to outright ban guns.
Secondly, while it's true that some people will find some other way to carry out a massacre, it is also true that making it that much harder for them will discourage some would-be mass murderers from carrying out the attack. Which is what happened in countries such as Australia and the U.K. after they imposed strict gun control.

In Japan, a country c.a. 1/3 the size of USA, they average around 4 gun deaths in a year vs USA's 30.000+. (Most of those are suicides though.)
In 2016 USA had 17,250 homicides. So naturally, since guns don't kill people, Japan probably made up for it with samurai swords, and their homicide number should be around 30% of USA's figure. Except it's not. It's 0,02%.

But what we're talking about here is the ability for one person to kill an extraordinary amount of people at once, with ease.
And that barely ever happens in Japan. While we can't even go a few weeks without having a new one in the US.

Show me one single civilian who ever needed an AR-15. And  I'll show you 50 people for each one that easily died because of such a weapon.
People defending themselves from a mass shooter ignores the purpose of the question. Not to mention a normal gun would be more appropriate.

"If everyone was allowed to carry nukes"

we allow people access to bomb making materials

should we ban pvc piping while we are at it? 

 

"Not to outright ban guns."

how are you going to stop shootings if your goal is not to ban guns completely?

 

"No, you would debate if it's reasonable for a civilian to have that kind of weapon. "

 an ever ending list of things could fit this criteria

i just posted a situation where over 100 people an 33 people were killed in china through the use of knives

incidents where people in the double digits are killed like this happen in china at about the same frequency as mass shootings in the us

not to mention that guns exist at a rate of about 6 to each person in the states what will you do about all of them?

 

"But what we're talking about here is the ability for one person to kill an extraordinary amount of people at once, with ease."

like with bombs?

 

"In Japan"

japan is a very poor example, from what i've been hearing their country is on the verge of collapse because men have become so feminised they don't even want to associate with women lol

 

" Which is what happened in countries such as Australia and the U.K. after they imposed strict gun control."

killings in the uk has been on the rise steadily for the past few years; i don't know about australia

 

"Show me one single civilian who ever needed an AR-15. "

well shit i didn't realise you were the arbiter of what people should desire in their lives

people don't need much besides food, water and shelter but they often have other possessions for various reasons not because of need but because of want

people don't need alcohol either and alcohol causes more deaths per year, are you going to ban alcohol too?