By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 said:

I am a POC. My family are BIPOC. I still have concerns about gun laws because of how they are used to harm people who look like me and my family, even if we are non-gun owners, such as the examples I provided. I was genuinely asking about how enforcement of a ban would work without disproportionately harming people who look like me and my family, and you respond with a very yt perspective about hunting deer with no intentions of addressing these questions.

That's the issue. There is this "Binary" line in the sand.

The gun control legislation itself shouldn't discriminate, here people of different ethnic/cultural backgrounds don't really suffer any more or less with or without guns... But one thing is for sure. They are certainly less likely to be shot dead.

One of my roles as a first responder is extrication's where we assist the ambulance service... And after all these years I can count how many "incidents" involved guns. - None.

Growing up as a kid in the 80's, guns were everywhere, even my own father had a double barrel shotgun in his garage that I often played with. (No ammo of course.)
Fast forward to the late 90's... And every child after that is highly unlikely to ever see a gun in real life... And it doesn't matter what cultural/ethnic/minority you are, it's just safer for everyone.

cyberninja45 said:

The country its your right to bear arms. So a license to a right would never fly nationally. 

So having armed personel in schools is the next best thing to me. To me gunfree zones in a country like this makes no sense. May as well call them sitting duck zones.

You don't loose the right. It's just made more difficult.

Having armed personnel just means the higher chance of a cross-shootout with casualties caught in the middle... And no child should grow up fearing if they are going to be murdered in what should be a safe, constructive, learning environment.

kirby007 said:

This wouldnt have happend if those kids would have been allowed to carry their gun with them to school.

I feel for these kids/families

Your sarcasm is next level.

You can't even trust kids to keep their hands out of a cookie jar.

cyberninja45 said:

Why arms guards in schools a bad thing?

It's a school, not a prison?

sc94597 said:

There is estimated to be about 400-600 million guns in the U.S. The majority of them are probably semi-automatic weapons at this point. That is a gun to person ratio of between 1.2 and 1.8. 

Controlling the supply of guns is just not logistically possible at this point. 

It would be easier to: 

  1. Work on reducing wealth-inequality and eliminate homelessness and poverty. 
  2. Pay to have a school psychiatrist evaluate every student and have free-at-the-point of use mental healthcare for everyone in primary and secondary school (at least, ideally for everyone.) 
  3. Reconstruct social clubs that allow people to form physical connections beyond their family and in which a person is more likely to be de-radicalized or re-adjusted to society. Historically local churches did this, but the U.S population is secularizing. Right now the problem is that young people in the U.S experience what Durkheim called Anomie. This is either because rules are too rigid and alienate them or because there is no normative structure at all. 
  4. Reconstruct the education systems so that students don't feel alienated. See: Ferrer movement and Francisco Ferrer as an ideal model. 
  5. Decriminalize all drugs and other non-violent "crimes." 
  6. Aggressively dox and put maximal social pressure on fascists and other hyper-nationalists. 
  7. #6 but for Incels and other radical misogynists. 

Introducing every point on this list would be easier (and likely have a greater effect on shootings) than reducing the supply of guns in the U.S. Solving these problems would also solve many other social problems in the U.S as well. 

Start with Gun Control first and then work your way back. It's the source of the issue, you attack issues from the source.

Cobretti2 said:

The sad thing is when you say this to some American's  how it has worked in Australia they  spit out the old knifes kill people, cars run over people, things you see in Aus every now and then, or they see the farmer story that lost everything shoot his family for example.

What they don't get is that certain guns make it easier to kill someone and at a faster rate. Most people that do these massacres need the gun as a knife they be to gutless to do it, and if they did well you can get a group of people jump that person and disarm them and far less people would die.

In reality if they looked at Aus, since Port Arthur, we haven't had a massacre of that nature (i.e. a stranger shooting strangers). The worst we gotten is some guy with a hand gun from memory in probably 2008 now who shot like 3-4 people?

Correct. We did actually have a "stabbing" issue, so we actually introduced restrictions of buying knives, so if you are under 18, you cannot walk into a shop and purchase a knife and then stab someone.
We also introduced a weapon-concealment ban, so you couldn't carry pocket knifes unless it was for a professional reason.

And that had an effect on knife related incidents.

Cars are a high-risk activity and of course "Car Control" is a thing, you need to be trained, you need to be insured, do the wrong thing and you get punished and more... Which is what it should be for guns too.

You introduce tools to reduce them. And if it saves a life, then it was worth it.

--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--