"Stricter gun laws" = NOTHING to do with "banning guns"

[Shodan 2.0]

Just saying, it seems like too many people misunderstand this idea or just misinterpret it on purpose in order to have some "problem" to whine about and a "common enemy" as a manipulation tool or simply just to have more things to whine about.

Anyway, "stricter gun laws" would just make it harder for the wrong people to get access to guns. The people who take away other people's freedom. Without such people having access to guns, everyone else would have more freedom. Freedom to live. Freedom to go anywhere without fear of getting shot.

The problem isn't guns or normal gun owners, it's just the wrong people being able to access them too easily and without even knowing how to use them responsibly.

Stricter gun laws would absolutely not affect all the normal gun owners out there who are the majority, so I don't see what's the problem. You would still have your guns for self-defense just in case because you can never fully get rid of criminals, but you would definitely be less likely to have to use them as a last resort.

See, you can have a gun in Massachusetts just fine:

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/gun-ownership-in-massachusetts

But, because Massachusetts has stricter gun laws, mass shootings (specifically school shootings) there are as nonexistent as in Europe and it's generally one of the best states in terms of safety.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_shootings_in_Massachusetts

Just 4 entries here, basically isolated incidents as anywhere else in the world.

Switzerland has a really strong gun culture and plenty of guns, but mass shootings are nonexistent. Go figure. Maybe it's proper regulations, as well as proper education and training?

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by Lora Grim:

Originally posted by GloriousZote:

They also kill a lot less when other people can shoot them first.

Why isn't it stopping all the gun crimes then? No even half of all gun crimes are prevented by another person having a gun.
The moment somebody fires at somebody else, all the other people scatter like roaches, fleeing for their own lives.

People trained to keep the peace should have the guns. Not untrained, undisciplined people who have no obligation to save another person.

Do you trust the police?

[Lora Grim]

Originally posted by SlowMango:

Do you trust the police?

I used to trust the police in my country before it became a dictatorship.
They were fast to respond, polite and would attempt to talk criminals down before using force.

Would i trust the american police? No. They are criminals too as far as i'm concerned, which needs to be addressed too.

[GloriousZote]

You know what helps prevent countries from becoming a dictatorship?
Armed civilians.

[Shodan 2.0]

I didn't keep up at all, but let me just say this:

Originally posted by Your_White_Knight:

Originally posted by Shodan 2.0:

"Stricter gun laws" = NOTHING to do with "banning guns"

Just saying, it seems like too many people misunderstand this idea or just misinterpret it on purpose in order to have some "problem" to whine about and a "common enemy" as a manipulation tool or simply just to have more things to whine about.

Anyway, "stricter gun laws" would just make it harder for the wrong people to get access to guns. The people who take away other people's freedom. Without such people having access to guns, everyone else would have more freedom. Freedom to live. Freedom to go anywhere without fear of getting shot.

The problem isn't guns or normal gun owners, it's just the wrong people being able to access them too easily and without even knowing how to use them responsibly.

Stricter gun laws would absolutely not affect all the normal gun owners out there who are the majority, so I don't see what's the problem. You would still have your guns for self-defense just in case because you can never fully get rid of criminals, but you would definitely be less likely to have to use them as a last resort.

See, you can have a gun in Massachusetts just fine:

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/gun-ownership-in-massachusetts

But, because Massachusetts has stricter gun laws, mass shootings (specifically school shootings) there are as nonexistent as in Europe and it's generally one of the best states in terms of safety.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_shootings_in_Massachusetts

Just 4 entries here, basically isolated incidents as anywhere else in the world.

Switzerland has a really strong gun culture and plenty of guns, but mass shootings are nonexistent. Go figure. Maybe it's proper regulations, as well as proper education and training?

Haven't we gone over this enough times?.... ~NO~ "Stricter gun laws" = "banning guns"

Nobody is fooled here... unless one is too gullible to understand people will find ways of attacking people with or without guns... you're trying to do the impossible with "feels" and dreams.

Example A:

Originally posted by Lora Grim:

Violating the constitution is only okay when it is about infringing on minority groups constitutional right to pursue happiness.

Right-wingers advocate for their right to keep their guns while preaching how gays and trans people should lose their rights.

f*ck you and your guns.

*sigh*

Angry people talking violence?... yes.. that's why we need guns to protect ourselves from violent people like that...

I KNOW IT WON'T MAGICALLY MAKE CRIME DISAPPEAR AND I SAID SO MORE THAN ONCE, NO ONE IS EVEN ARGUING OTHERWISE, BUT IT WOULD DEFINITELY MAKE THINGS BETTER.

Also, no one is saying that you shouldn't ever have guns and you won't ever need a gun, that's not even the point, it's just that it's too easy for the wrong people to get to them.

Yeah, you could always make some alternate... tools... at home, but not everyone knows how to do that, not everyone is capable of doing that and not everyone can be bothered.

Yeah, some criminals have connections with the criminal underworld, but not everyone does... Do you actually believe that those school shooters are people who were involved in criminal business for decades and that's how they got their guns? Yeah, no, it's not so easy to get to illegal guns from criminals, especially for teenagers like the Columbine shooters who were obviously never involved in that kind of stuff and wouldn't even manage to end up there, so no, they wouldn't be able to get to guns that way. Knives? Sure, but with a knife, you're easy to stop and you can't kill nearly as many people. Bombs? You can run away and take cover in time, you'd have to know how to make them and you'd have to be bothered to make them, plus you can't have that many bombs anyway... So, yeah, there are other ways to kill people, but they're not nearly as "efficient" (uh) or as simple.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by Lora Grim:

Originally posted by SlowMango:

Do you trust the police?

I used to trust the police in my country before it became a dictatorship.
They were fast to respond, polite and would attempt to talk criminals down before using force.

Would i trust the american police? No. They are criminals too as far as i'm concerned, which needs to be addressed too.

Originally posted by Lora Grim:

People trained to keep the peace should have the guns. Not untrained, undisciplined people who have no obligation to save another person.

So then the you don't actually believe the above statement. Thank you.

[Netaris]

Originally posted by Shodan 2.0:

I KNOW IT WON'T MAGICALLY MAKE CRIME DISAPPEAR AND I SAID SO MORE THAN ONCE, NO ONE IS EVEN ARGUING OTHERWISE, BUT IT WOULD DEFINITELY MAKE THINGS BETTER.

Also, no one is saying that you shouldn't ever have guns and you won't ever need a gun, that's not even the point, it's just that it's too easy for the wrong people to get to them. Yeah, you could always make some alternate... tools... at home, but not everyone knows how to do that, not everyone is capable of doing that and not everyone can be bothered. Yeah, some criminals have connections with the criminal underworld, but not everyone does... Do you actually believe that those school shooters are people who were involved in criminal business for decades and that's how they got their guns? Yeah, no, it's not so easy to get to illegal guns from criminals, especially for teenagers like the Columbine shooters, they wouldn't be able to get to guns that way.

What most criminals want is money. Just put on them only 1/10th of the social pressure governments putted on non-vaccinated peoples and you'll see gangs magically dissapear as they'll starve for the very thing that hold them together : money. Instead of covid tests, make drug tests and enforce the same restrictions on drug addicts that what was done on non-vaccinated. You'll see gangs dissapear one after another, then attack prostitution and human traficking, most gangs will be gone with that I think. Starve them, make money harder for them to make and make them less able to profit from their money. Al Capone wasn't put in jail for his trafiking, but about taxes, that's how you fight crime for real, you make it starve, you attack on money.

Politicians should do that instead of losing everyone's time to try to enforce their little dictatorship.

[Your_White_Knight]

Originally posted by Plaid:

Originally posted by Shodan 2.0:

The problem isn't guns or normal gun owners, it's just the wrong people being able to access them too easily and without even knowing how to use them responsibly.

I think that's a large problem yeah, though I'm pretty sure most of the gun deaths actually come from suicide, plus a lot of injuries from intentional shootings.

The only problem is that there's no way to keep it from "the wrong people" because they can steal them from "the right people"... the problem is addressing "the wrong people" but anti-gun people don't want to do that.. because they're the ones letting "the wrong people' run around getting guns by any means. So it means eventually banning guns even from normal gun owners.

Time to start addressing the mental illness problems running rampant and unchecked in America... that will prevent "wrong people" being able to access guns...

[Shodan 2.0]

Originally posted by Plaid:

Originally posted by Shodan 2.0:

The problem isn't guns or normal gun owners, it's just the wrong people being able to access them too easily and without even knowing how to use them responsibly.

I think that's a large problem yeah, though I'm pretty sure most of the gun deaths actually come from suicide, plus a lot of injuries from intentional shootings.

I'm not talking about gun deaths in general, just the insane amount of mass shootings and specifically school shootings. That stuff is disgusting and doesn't exist anywhere else. Here, for example, we recently had a shooting in broad daylight and one of those involved was a guy who went to class with me, but that's just criminals shooting each other and leaving everyone else alone. That's how it is everywhere else, mass shootings simply don't exist here.

Serbia has a ton of guns, it's right below America in terms of gun ownership, but it's not about the number of guns, it's that you can't get them nearly as easily as you can in America, and because of that, only very recently, the first school shooting ever in this entire area (not just the country) happened. The gun wasn't secured properly by an idiot owner, it's not like the kid had connections to the criminal underworld that supplied him with illegal guns. That's why proper education and training should be a thing, as well as not letting any kind of completely careless and irresponsible idiots get near guns.

Originally posted by Ad Victoriam !:

Originally posted by Shodan 2.0:

I KNOW IT WON'T MAGICALLY MAKE CRIME DISAPPEAR AND I SAID SO MORE THAN ONCE, NO ONE IS EVEN ARGUING OTHERWISE, BUT IT WOULD DEFINITELY MAKE THINGS BETTER.

Also, no one is saying that you shouldn't ever have guns and you won't ever need a gun, that's not even the point, it's just that it's too easy for the wrong people to get to them. Yeah, you could always make some alternate... tools... at home, but not everyone knows how to do that, not everyone is capable of doing that and not everyone can be bothered. Yeah, some criminals have connections with the criminal underworld, but not everyone does... Do you actually believe that those school shooters are people who were involved in criminal business for decades and that's how they got their guns? Yeah, no, it's not so easy to get to illegal guns from criminals, especially for teenagers like the Columbine shooters, they wouldn't be able to get to guns that way.

What most criminals want is money. Just put on them only 1/10th of the social pressure governments putted on non-vaccinated peoples and you'll see gangs magically dissapear as they'll starve for the very thing that hold them together : money. Instead of covid tests, make drug tests and enforce the same restrictions on drug addicts that what was done on non-vaccinated. You'll see gangs dissapear one after another, then attack prostitution and human traficking, most gangs will be gone with that I think. Starve them, make money harder for them to make and make them less able to profit from their money. Al Capone wasn't put in jail for his trafiking, but about taxes, that's how you fight crime for real, you make it starve, you attack on money.

Politicians should do that instead of losing everyone's time to try to enforce their little dictatorship.

Those criminals "just" shoot each other anyway and cops even let them do that because that way, they'll just kill each other in the end, so cops don't even need to bother most of the time. They're not completely crazy people who might go on a killing spree any day, they're just low-life criminals who are simply in that "lifestyle" and they'll kill other criminals who are involved in the same things, good for them. You almost always don't need to fear those unless you're in that business as well.

[Tonepoet]

Well, the first thing you have to consider is the slippery slope. Yes, I know it is technically a fallacious argument, but that does not mean it is invalid rationale. It just means that the argumentation method is not logically infallible. Indeed, a common law judiciary system will often fall down the slippery slope simply because of creeping precedence.

Now with that having been said, it has something to do with gun bans, because there eventually comes a point where if you pass increasingly strict gun laws, that it becomes nigh impossible to get a gun. That is to say, even if guns are not technically banned as a matter of law, strict enough laws serve as a de-facto ban nevertheless. There has to come a point where you draw a line in the sand and say this is far enough.

That link you show me does not show me that you can own a gun in Massachusetts just fine. It shows me that you can apply to get a license to carry a gun. That is not the same thing at all. If the Massachusetts government elects to never issue that license, then a requirement to have a license to carry constitutes a de-facto ban, even though strictly speaking there is technically an avenue that allows for hypothetical legal gun ownership.

This is why the difference between shall-issue and may-issue[www.uslawshield.com] states is rather important for concealed carry permits. May issue states like California almost never actually grant them.

Originally posted by Shodan 2.0:

Originally posted by 계산 중:

Are you sure about that?
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/crime-rate-by-state

What you're claiming doesn't exactly seem to line up with statistics.

Oh yeah.

Sort this one by death rate:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

So, I was right, Massachusetts is still the best and from what I see, the worst are the "Wild West" kind of states. Pretty much. Might be some exceptions, but that's the idea.

Yeah, California has by far the worst numbers and then someone would be like "AHA, MOST STRICT GUN LAWS AND MOST SHOOTINGS", but that's because it also has by far the highest population... Jesus Christ, it's the percentage that matters and that's "death rate", the middle column, then things start maing a lot more sense when you sort it by that. I really wonder if some people even went to school at all when they don't even scale things at all and just compare numbers.

That is a fair point but still not quite the whole story though. It is important to compare like with like. Death rates across the state as a whole are relatively low, but are California's death rates low because of the gun laws, or is it because it has plenty of rural peaceful farm areas where crime is unlikely to happen to compensate for all of the violent crimes occuring in densely populated areas where people are more unruly and motivated to commit them?

California has some of the deadliest cities in the union on a per-capita basis, and it seems to me that the gun laws aren't very effective at protecting San Bernandino, Richmond or Oakland[www.cbsnews.com]. Having three out of the top 40 deadliest cities in the union seems somewhat disproportionately high when there are as many as 50 states. Los Angeles is also considered to be quite dangerous to my recollection. Crime rates also seem to be on on the rise there[www.lamag.com] as of 2021.

[Plaid]

Yeah, I hear ya. We're doing a lot of of things wrong out here. I think if we tackled a lot of other failures we could also reduce the amount of anxiety and violent crime. Improve living standards and make sure our people get the healthcare they need. We're also the only country with such a medical bankruptcy problem.
There's a lot of talk about mental health in regards to these shootings and suicides, but out of these same mouths is talk of cutting social programs and kicking people off healthcare. Doing nothing about drug prices so people with mental issues can take their medicine.

All we answer to is profits. It's twisted and psychotic, but the unfortunate reality. It forms our policy and benefits the top percentile while sacrificing those at the bottom and even the middle.

[Shodan 2.0]

Look.

I just have one question which everyone constantly keeps avoiding for the stupid ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ "IT WOULDN'T MAKE THE PROBLEM GO AWAY" ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ excuse.

Yes, no ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ♥♥♥♥ it won't magically make the problem go away, BUT IT WOULD DEFINITELY REDUCE IT, and at what cost? Nothing, that's what. And yet, instead of just TRYING to make things better, you people just refuse to even hear anything about it and just constantly repeat "IT WON'T MAKE IT GO AWAY, WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF MENTAL HEALTH".

OF COURSE it won't go away just like that and OF COURSE mental health is a problem that NEEDS to be taken care of, no one is arguing otherwise, BUT WHY NOT DO BOTH? Surely it would be more efficient to take care of BOTH than just one of these, regardless of which one it is, don't you think?

I already explained, there are simply way too many guns out there already and it's LITERALLY impossible for anyone to suddenly take them away from you, that's simply not going to happen. Even if someone suddenly started taking away all these guns (more guns than people) somehow, it wouldn't turn out well, just like with Prohibition... see how that worked out. Alcohol is much easier to take away from you than guns, yet even that failed catastrophically.

But regardless, THIS IS NOT ABOUT BANNING OR TAKING AWAY GUNS, this is simply about making it harder for all irresponsible, careless, crazy and other people to get access to guns so easily, nothing more.

There should be proper education and training (like there is in Switzerland if I'm not mistaken), JUST LIKE WITH DRIVING FOR ♥♥♥♥'S SAKE, you can't just buy a car and drive it just like that, you need a license and pretty much EVERYONE goes through that successfully and then they're free to drive all they want, no problem at all.

How come NO ONE ever complains about driving licenses limiting freedom and rights to own and drive a car and what not? It's literally the same ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ♥♥♥♥, yet no one ever complains about this. You know why? Because it's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ridiculous to complain about it and it's not even a real problem, in fact, it's there to reduce problems.

So, my question is, why are you so much against even TRYING to reduce the amount of these awful mass shootings when it clearly wouldn't cost you anything?

All you people got is this "OHHH, THAT WOULD BE JUST THE BEGINNING!!!" kind of whiny paranoid ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ which is NEVER going to come true, no real arguments at all, just a bunch of stupid and completely unrealistic, illogical and baseless "WHAT IF" apocalyptic scenarios like you're completely detached from reality.

Stop constantly repeating the exact same generic ♥♥♥♥ without even trying to read what I'm actually saying first. I don't disagree about mental health, I don't disagree about your rights and freedom to own guns and so on and so on, so stop making it sound as if I do and actually read what I'm trying to say and actually try to comprehend it, instead of just throwing around these generic assumptions.

[HypersleepyNaputunia]

seizing = loss of power
loss of power = power vacuum
power vacuum = ambitious take control
loss of power = no ability to restore human rights if needed

learn from history

[Shodan 2.0]

Originally posted by KyokoKirigiri:

seizing = loss of power
loss of power = power vacuum
power vacuum = ambitious take control
loss of power = no ability to restore human rights if needed

learn from history

See, this is exactly what I was talking about in my comment.

For ♥♥♥♥'s sake:

READ what I said right above and then tell me where you even got this "seizing" from and even if there was any seizing, JUST HOW THE HELL could that succeed when there are more guns than people and those people are probably willing to use those guns to fight back? Look how badly Prohibition turned out and that was alcohol, while this would be guns that you can even use to fight back, making them much harder to take away than alcohol and even alcohol failed miserably.

But regardless, NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT BANNING OR TAKING AWAY GUNS, plus it's literally impossible anyway, so they can say whatever they want, it's not happening.

[Lora Grim]

How come some right-wingers here are talking about taking care of mental health now?
I thought most of them consider psychology a "quack psuedo science".
I guess they care about it as long as they can point at that to distract from ideas of gun control.

[GloriousZote]

More gun restrictions will lead to taking away guns, I'm sorry this has to be spelled out for you a hundred-thousand times, OP.
And while guns can't be completely taken away, they will be taken away from law-abiding citizens, y'know, the ones unlikely to harm people to begin with.