The gun control talk

1. I dont understand how this is a hard point to get across in a nightclub scenario, the place is packed and barely lit, and personally if there is a chance that I am going to accidentally shoot an innocent bystander then that is not an option anymore, and if u do shoot them u cant tell urself you were trying to get the bad guy because you made a conscious choice to take that risk.

2. Again if u arent trained to act in a stressful situation with alot of bystanders and in a strange environment, its not your right to take the chance of shooting bystanders because you assume you have the skill to handle the situation like a cop who has been trained to handle that situation. That is the burden the police have to go with every time they go out there, and their responsibility.

3. America is the pillar of democracy and is supposed to set an example of being so, the other point being that there are laws that specifically prevents the need for that to arise and in this day and age thinking that you will be ever overpowered by being outgunned is naive, also the point here isnt disarming the public but making it harder for people who SHOULDNT have guns to get guns ( I honestly think that should be a no brainer)

 

I am serious mate,


Do you think people go to schools and pick their children up with the assumption that other parents are doing so with a gun? or go to a packed nightclub expecting other people to be armed? hell people would panic and leave if they see the gun by mistake.

The point here is even if u have a license to carry and if u have the training to handle your fire arm, you dont have the right impose that threat on people who go there with the assumption that they are going to a ''gun free zone''

by the same logic if a child had a contagious disease, the school would be obligated to make him take days off till he gets better because parents send their kids to an environment they are taking for granted to be safe

 

Thats easier than actually debating the point I expected nothing less

Good job buddy

 

You lost all credibility when you brought up Call of Duty. I personally had friend who died at Pulse and two others who made it out. Your arguments make no sense. You expect people to be sitting ducks and be fine with it. Sure go ahead with stricter background checks. They found NOTHING on the vegas shooter. What can you say about the Bataclan shooting with your logic? What about Charlie Hebdo?

 

Louder for those in the back

 

So the main 2 points I am trying to argue here with you and any gun enthusiast:

1. Some people shouldnt have access to guns and if we can make this happen by stricter gun control measures we SHOULD implement them ((PLEASE understand no one is taking your guns but disarming people who may end up being the bad guy in the end))

2. We can debate this based on our personal values whether carrying in public should be allowed, personally to answer your question I find it inexcusable to take one innocent life to possibly save 20 but if u are willing to live with urself other wise then thats a judgment call and we can debate that but at least we can both agree than there are bad people in the world and implementinglaws to stop them potentially accessing guns is sensible policy right?

 

Can we agree that long term psychiatric patients, ex - cons, and foreigners shouldnt have access to guns ? if so then we can find common ground and move from there

 

Another angle to consider is the roll of the media in tragedies like this. About a decade ago, Mexico had an issue. The cartels would send messages by committing gruesome murders. Beheadings, tearing bodies into pieces, etc. The media would report on it in vivid detail and competing gangs would respond and try to do something even worse. It scaled to where whole innocent families would be found tortured and executed. The Mexican media as a collective decided to change how these events were reported. They stopped including details about which gangs were involved and would instead simply report the victims names and focused on their lives. Gang violence didnt stop but gang related murders dropped by a large margin.

We live in an age where information is readily available to everyone. When these things happen the shooters name and photo are broadcast and you see phrases like "The deadliest shooting in US history" as if there is a scoreboard somewhere. If they simply reported the information in a different way and focused on the victims instead of the perpetrators I strongly feel you would see events like this happen far less frequently. Shooters should be the footnote. Not the headline.

However, we live in a country of free speech. We cannot force the media to do this without breaking one of the fundamental freedoms of our country. This is something the media will have to change on their own which is frankly unlikely to happen because like it or not, events like this drive ratings.

 

I don't think you know how America works. Anyone can get a gun, (through unethical means). Just like how anyone can get drugs. Cocaine is banned! Good thing no one in America has cocaine. and it's sad to think you would value one life over 20.

 

Still waiting for @BurnPyro to respond.

 

Making it harder is our duty no? thats why its much harder and more expensive to get drugs etc.

also if one life holds no meaning then none of them does at least thats my view, again I understand people who argue the opposite point but in the end its a question of whether u can live with whatever decision u make if so then there is nothing more to it.

 

Like I said, I don't think you know how America works. It's really easy to get drugs. And honestly how is it better to live with yourself knowing you allowed 20 to die over 1?

 

And you still haven't replied to my rebuttal. The Vegas shooter was clean.

 

By recognizing that I dont have the right to make that decision, say that person devises a cure to a certain disease and saves 100's of life then would you make that decision then? If it was my life to save 20 other people then thats a different story and I agree there, but again its a matter of ethics and I dont think there is a ''right'' answer here

 

Gun free zones? Like Europe is a gun free zone? Oh yeah, with their lower crime and gundeath rates. How dare Europe!

(Your gun free zone implication is false either way, nobody is calling for full prohibition.)

You've been on the NRA koolaid for too long. You're acting so emotionally, like I personally attacked you with this thread.

 

So is that what you're proposing after all this time? A gun free zone? And no I don't take it personally. Out of all the controversial threads you start I rarely bat an eyelash.

 

Don't forget the Norway shooter.

 

It's so bloody frustrating how people keep bringing up the France incident

Okay please let's compare gun related mass killings in america to all mass killings across Europe from all causes ... wait what's that America wins by a huge majority well I'll be damned

Yes evil people will do evil things but for some mysterious reason ingun regulated places those incidents are almost non existent when compared to the states I wonder what the cause is

And for the 10 th time no one wants to take ur guns we just want to make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns to get guns please get that through ur head