The debate "Banning rifles won't fix school shootings. We need an in depth vetting process for gun ownership" was started by
March 22, 2018, 6:57 am.
23 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 5 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
ChangeMyMind posted 8 arguments, DarthLoquacious posted 4 arguments, Matt354 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
MajorGeneralX posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 11 arguments, DarthLoquacious posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
ChangeMyMind, Corey0711, DarthLoquacious, ConyGoalard, brontoraptor, Leeezzz, vickyy_y, Matt354 and 15 visitors agree.
MajorGeneralX, Muneej and 3 visitors disagree.
if the founding fathers had made it a right to sacrifice people to Satan would you defend it because they made it so?
my point, as nemirof indicated, was why did the founding fathers include that? does that reasoning still make sense today? is their reason worth more than the 10s of thousands of people this right is killing?
i believe he was looking for the reason why the founders found it important to begin with and whether that reason still holds up.
why were guns included up there with the right to speak and think what you want?
and I hope you realize that "because they said so" is not an answer... why did they say so? I'm sure the fathers had actual.... reasons for their actions right?
Because the Founding Fathers never had an expiration date on any constitutional right, 2nd Amendment included.
Why? why should owning a gun be a right? it was originally included because the founding fathers didn't want a big professional army. they wanted militias because they were afraid of a big standing army. but America now has the best funded military in the world. there is no more reason for private citizens to be heavily armed.
Every American has a right to own a gun, and having such right does not require a "need" or justification to purchase one.
what sort of vetting process are you suggesting?
how many people would you want to be walking around armed in cities? (%)
Worshipping Satan isn't a crime in USA.
It's an intergalactic crime, untolerated by Muslims worldwide to a degree similar to homosexual sodomy.
You want an effective gun ban, try banning all people who don't believe in the Almighty God.
By simply leaving it up to false god police and whoever they are able to stick a case on; you are playing right into the devil's arsenal.
He has people who never come out and interact with these police, you so heavily rely upon to determine who gets to return fire, and who has to survive as unarmed prey.
I'm sorry but I, and much of the world would rather live in a society where guns are not easy to get. it is much safer. your weird, crazy ranting didn't really address anything I said.
Gun crimes are massively reduced in prisons as well.
Why must you bring up places and situations where criminals who don't have criminal records are able to dehumanize the residents and claim to be upright dignitaries yet boasting false victories over defeating evil.
In USA, during the civil war; the south dared not allow those they were dehumanizing to have guns, because they were afraid the north was going to win that much easier.
You see, taking guns from people, or saying they can't have guns is nothing but a plot of Satanic people who already have guns, or direct command and authority over those who do.
You really need to study how millions and millions of people were held in the most god awful scenarios, simply because people like you were able to make sure that only evil people expert at avoiding criminal records get to have all the guns their hearts desire.
then why have gun crimes been massively reduced in places like Australia? they largely banned guns and gun crimes went way down. this idea that criminals will continue to get guns anyway is silly.
you know where most of the illegal weapons in America (and Canada for that matter) come from? American factories. if these factories have to actually keep records of who they sell to, and the buyers have to be properly licensed, then preventing criminals from getting guns becomes much easier.
That's the point of him being a robber.
You could make a law against a carjacker owning a car, but it doesn't stop them from jacking someone you gave permission to have a car.
I have only interviewed male robbers and burglars.
They are extremely adverse to buying cars, guns, or jewelry even if they weren't too busy laughing at someone with the audacity to grant them such permission.
I interviewed a man who uses dark web, he says there are bad guys with access to stuff we can't even buy in stores.
And we certainly can't stop the CIA from providing crack, heroin, or guns to their little contract confidential allies around the world, and in USA.
najam how the hell is a robber going to shoot you if he can't get a gun?!?!
Only a fool like you is going to let other fools tell you that it's against the law for you to shoot a gun at someone trying to shoot you, kill you, rob you, rape you.
You are the fool who actually thinks that all criminals have criminal records, and not even one criminal can make a gun or ammunition.
You are the fool who thinks that because you tell some people that they can't have a gun; that's sufficient to stop all criminals from robbing, shooting, or killing those people.
a modern country is defended by a military, not by civilians with AR 15s. in an age where a man can kill you with a drone from the other side of the planet, it is downright sad that you think civilians with rifles would be important to defending America.
how many thousands of people have to die for this fantasy?
maybe I missed Australia or Canada or Britain getting invaded recently, but I'm pretty sure that isn't true.
All other modern countries in the world which have banned guns have been invaded, and as a result, the course of their history has changed. The second amendment was made in partly, so that the general population would be empowered and able to prevent tyranny and corruption from taking over.
America will not be invaded. No one has the military power to do so, exactly because if our military was to fail, they would have to deal with our citizens.
The problem is not the guns. The problem is the background check system. Part of living in a free country entails living next to a whack job or two.
and a good guy with a gun wouldn't have been needed if the bad guy can't get a gun. your argument is invalid.
how can you argue banning guns doesn't work when it has worked in most other modern countries in the world? no other country in the developed world has the kinds of problems with guns that you do. that is not a coincidence.
They arent legal... but you can buy them... thats like saying you can get hand grenades you just cant use them by this ridiculous gun logic. point being. banning guns has NEVER worked. Look at the most current events. School shooting in Florida, armed SRO didnt enter the building (because hes a bitch), 17 killed. School shooting in Maryland just the other day, no one killed but the gunman and he was killed by YOU GUESSED IT a good guy with a gun. An SRO that did his f**king job and was a hero. would you look at that a gun saved people... cant even quantify how many people it saved because no one died. what if it wasnt there and he managed to kill 100 people? What if we knew that variable? problem is the left is far more loud when it fits their anti gun agenda. No protests in the streets no vigils no nothing. not even a few moments on TV, they move right along. why ? because it disproves EVERYTHING in their "argument". And so does it all of yours.
They are. No legal weapon is automatic. There's such a thing as military-grade weaponry. Were you really not aware of this?
nascar and formula 1 cars are not legal to drive tho. even certain upgrades on normal cars are not street legal. everything has limits, why wouldn't deadly weapons with no non violent purpose be the same?
Keep in mind that in the US, the ratio of people to cars is 1:1.3, whereas the ratio of people to guns is 1:1.01.
I can name 2 things that an AR is used for more often for than your so called "only use": hunting and sport.
Also, find me the firearm related deaths in America this year, and tell me how they compare to automobile deaths.
Your argument is far from valid sir.
the difference is that a car serves a purpose other than killing people. an AR 15s only purpose is killing people. in a society where you don't want people killing each other it is a totally useless thing to own.
but why do the people need Lamborghini's? A blacked out Lambo with upgraded turbos is essentially an "assault automobile" speed limits 70 at most here, it does over 200... Gets there quick also, sleek lines, kinda scary even, way over capable suspension and tires that could win an F1 race... why? we dont NEED that...
so do we need strict licensing or banning of anything that can kill someone?
***continued*** If someone pulled a gun out in 80% of my life I would be able to stop them (with my gun) and end such assault from happening, if criminals aren't the only ones with firearms it wouldn't be so easy to commit such atrocities.
“the people shouldn’t have access to rifles like that!” You are absolutely correct. Only military and law enforcement and government agencies, wait that sounds familiar..... you know who else said that in history? Adolf Hilter, Mao Tze Tung, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin.... etc. etc.
It’s a SLIPPERY slope to say things like that.. sounds crazy right but if we don’t learn from history we are bound to repeat it correct ? What’s the next thing to go If we follow this trend?
Please research gun related quotes from any of these. Present day look at things tried in Africa, Iraq, and some random countries various atrocities have happened. I’ll leave you with this quote from Adolf Hitler:
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”
In closing, I’m glad most of these crazies who chant take all the guns only seem to care for about their agenda for approximately two weeks after a tragedy. That way us people who have had the same stance for years always prevail.
**please let’s debate**
Be your opinions in any direction strong. May we not forget that owning such powerful weapons was never intended for use of "hunting, or sporting" look into the first thing taken away in every terrible regime or mass murder or genocide or martial law overtake in history of written time. Cleansing the people of their ability to defend themselves against the government was the first step... Sounds crazy but in present day that kind of thing still happens outside of our great country. Yes some people shouldn't have access to weapons. I agree... people shouldn't have access to heroin and people shouldn't commit rape and murder and torture people also. All of which heavily restricted and against the law. What we need are solutions. The best defense is a good offense. Think watch sean fosters video with an open mind and look at an intelligent individual speak about "gun control" look at the faces of the senators and people against him change as he makes legitimate and valid point time and time again in his speech. Think about this... if that young man walking towards the school carrying an AR15 was in THE EXACT SAME SCENARIO only the faculty member who saw him (and might I add immediately called a code red because he was THAT known and crazy) instead pulled his/her licensed and owned concealed carry permitted weapon with any OUNCE of training shot him dead before he even pulled the trigger. The gunman would be the only one injured in this event. He would be dead, and a GUN would have saved the lives of 17 individuals whom aren't here with us today. GUNS are not evil PEOPLE are evil. People are also Heroes each and every day... no law will stop people from being evil. If it isn't an AR15 they can google how to make acid or bombs or take a car (the best assault weapon responsible for more deaths annually than anything) and drive into a crowd killing 60 (like happens in other countries with the restrictions you all suggest). Instead we "protect" our kids with a sign and some laws that make an area a "gun free zone". Take them down, train your staff, train your kids, talk to them about telling someone and bystander intervention, this kid SAID HE WAS GOING TO DO IT ON SOCIAL MEDIA and people said years ago "if anyone's going to shoot up the school its him". And no one did anything, no one said anything, no one got him help, no one told the cops/fbi.... Everyone assumed someone else would fix the problem for them. Don't be a soft target.
in Canada it is illegal to own a magazine that can hold more that 5 rounds. I would say that would be a good rule.
My point exactly. So, if you understand that concept, why do you draw the line at assault rifles?
you can still empty a clip in less then a minute with semi, and with like 2 days practice by an amateur, it could be deadlier then a full auto (wielded by that same amateur)
Both assault rifles and handguns are semi automatic. You need to press the trigger as many times as bullets you want to fire, so why are we drawing the distinction there?
I would argue that the second amendment was never intended to include assault weapons. the fastest someone could fire a weapon when they wrote it was a few shots per minute. you can now empty a magazine into a crowd in a matter of seconds. their opinions on the matter are entirely out dated.
Very familiar. Served 10 years in the Marines. I know my way around any weapon system you put in front of me. I own plenty myself, plus I'm a concealed carry holder, and almost everyone I know owns at least one. Marines understand and respect weapons.
With weapon ownership comes responsibility. I support the 2nd amendment, but times have changed since the forefathers wrote it. In order to keep up with the times, I think gun owners should go a more extensive mental evaluation.
protection,hunting,fun.weapons are not bad. the people behind them can be or they can be someone good who saved another's life without even pulling the trigger.
@changemymind how experienced are you with people that own weapons? I don't mean to offend but your statement seems like you are not experienced with people that own them though I whole heartly support the psych evaluation
but why do the people even need guns?
Gun reform needs a better vetting process. I'm talking about a psychological analysis done to every person who wants to own one, with the need to renew every so often. We need for mental history to be a factor in gun ownership.
Banning guns won't fix anything. There are too many guns in the homes of Americans already.