The debate "Mental illness may be why he killed but guns is why he killed so many" was started by
February 20, 2018, 3:50 pm.
12 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 34 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Nemiroff posted 8 arguments, MayaC17 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
chris3412 posted 6 arguments, DrMrDaniel posted 2 arguments, chasediedrich1 posted 1 argument, batmanfan777 posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
MayaC17, jivanl, anu1302, Yiyi, Nemiroff, tenyiyi and 6 visitors agree.
chris3412, YIHANG1024, DrMrDaniel, Aiyana, chasediedrich1, historybuff, NPW, criscap, trippyclouds, batmanfan777, chemikilsm0ke, ChangeMyMind and 22 visitors disagree.
You would have to single handedly confiscate and destroy every firearm on Earth,
and then capture and kill every human who has ever seen a gunsmith work in order to prevent demons from killing one of the humans, using a gun to do it
How can I explain the intricacies of intangible beings to one who only believes in physical incarnation?
so all those mass shooters who do exactly what I described are demons? is that the argument you are trying to make?
what about religious extremists who engage in suicide attacks? are they demons too?
You could argue that everyone who believes in spirits or graves is mentally ill, but the graveyards are still there in plain sight whether north or south.
What you are propositioning tasking mankind with is a fools quest?
That's an inhuman jinn creature you are referring to.
There's no human whose only goal is to get a gun, kill a bunch of people himself before going to hell in a blaze of glory.
You are accusing mere men of being demons, maybe that's because you don't confront and engage the men who aren't so mere.
Mass shooters don't usually go into it expecting to survive. it usually ends in suicide by cop. even if they survive they will be imprisoned for the rest of their lives. why would the presence of someone with a gun prevent it when they know their life is over anyway? that makes no sense. what can prevent them from shooting people is not having access to a gun.
You have to keep in mind that the only thing a mass shooter fears is someone shooting back at them. Taking guns from stores only pretends that there aren't any people capable of manufacturing and selling guns privately. In that case, the mass shooter has an even bigger advantage than against armed police too frightened to engage once the gunfire erupts.
So you are saying the only people that should be allowed guns is if they have education and resources to create themselves. If you are an unintelligent brute with only the education required to weightlift, or obey someone who has money, you shouldn't ever be able to buy a gun from someone with tech expertise capable of making even the simplified zip gun. Saltpeter, charcoal and smelting will have to be banned as well in order to reduce all deaths to unarmed combat deaths only.
Also, planes (and even cars) are registered, require paperwork to purchase, and are heavily regulated. Not everyone can fly a plane. Why aren't tools created exclusively to kill similarly regulated?
planes have a purpose. without them travel will be difficult, economies will shrink, and the world will grow farther apart.
without guns, the only consequence is fewer people will die.
in that case we should ban planes because 300+ people were intentionally killed by them
The thing is is that we can't determine whether someone is a mass murderer or just a guy who wants defence for himself, his home, and his family
You think so? would you like to actualy play the scenario out? how many guns would you like walking our streets?
oh yes, the if there had been a "good guy" with a gun argument. well there was a guard with a gun. it didn't save anyone. so instead of making guns easier to get, why not make it harder for mass murders to get guns so these shootings can be avoided? the rest of the developed world is already doing this and we don't have anywhere near the mass murder problems America has, to say nothing about the thousands of accidental gun deaths per year.
They would have took him with slingshots. Even if he has on a mask, they would still win if they know where to aim.
Because of homosexuality, the schools are anti-personal defense. In order to protect a homosexual attack from being countered, they're instilling that there's no fighting back under any conditions. This leaves an open opportunity for killers who aren't even homosexuals to just kill unarmed people, incapable of counter-attacking
Mental illness was why he killed but it was the lack of guns is why he killed so many.
it was certainly the person who killed, but the gun was the tool that enabled him to kill so effectively.
sure it was the person who misspelled the word, but would he be able to write at all without a writing tool?
your repeating political slogans, but you aren't addressing reality. without the gun, 17 people wouldn't be dead. maybe 2 or 3 with a knife, or 5 with a pistol. Not 17.
It's Not The guns that kill. It's The Person Using It. When writing, a pencil doesn't misspell the word, it's the person using the pencil.
Why are you sitting there limiting someone intent on killing a large number of people to only using a knife or a gun?
Why are you portraying all killers as fools, when even the Zodiac killer never got caught?
Are you so naive to the mind of a killer because you aren't one yourself, is it that you never sat down and talked to a killer, even worse; have you ever stopped a killer who was about to kill?
that is definitely not true.
even if you have someone who could take out an entire crowd with a knife, he could do it much easier with a gun, especially an semi auto. and if you bring it down to average joe, or even above average joe, there is no way a knife will take out as many people.
Also, complete psychos aside, a normal person who may snap can point and click for a while. But chopping into someone, especially repeatedly if he is going for the kill is not only horrifyingly revolting, it's also physically tiring. unless they are military they would get tired after body #3 or 4.
what makes guns worse, is the clean and easy kill from a safe and impersonal distance.
meaning the kill isn't just physically easy, but psychologically easy as well. (at least in the moment)
knife attacks are almost never as fatal as gun attacks. im sure you could find some rare examples of when they were, but dozen people or more that are regularly dying in American mass shootings simply doesn't happen much if they killer can't get a gun.
just because someone silently kills a single victim at a time with bare hands shouldn't cause you to assume they are less problematic than one who slays human beings with a loud gun.
potentially just as many. it's not the weapon of choice that matters. it's the person behind it. just like any tool.
You are lying to yourself and the public by claiming that some coward intent on killing a bunch of folks can only do so by walking in a store and buying a gun. Now I am going to post the evidence to prove you are lying about murders are only possible because of guns.
Look, there is absolutely no excuse for killing anyone. In his situation he was mentally I'll, this could've been prevented by him getting help- this falls on everyone who personally knew him. The students who where murdered could be alive right now if he didn't have the free access to a gun. Ask yourself, how many would he have killed if he used a knife or vertually any other weapon?
most people don't carry around guns. but that does create a problem with the original hypothesis of a school. hmm... metal detectors at all entrances for places of high risk.
I would say we still have a huge drug problem wouldn't you? I would say if I wished and actually took the time I could find someone willing to sell me something and I'm just living in a rural environment. it being illegal seems to be an inconvenience at most. guns would be harder but certainly not impossible. I would think it would just raise the price.
agreeable. it also keeps it out of the hands of crazy people
going to shoot up a bunch of innocent people is about as underground as it gets. They go where nobody will fight back.
the armed civilian getting a drop on them will only work if most civilians are unarmed. also the crook has to be a slacker, guns arent the only contingency he has to stay alert for so he may be jumpy to begin with.
much like drugs, making something illegal for the public makes it more difficult for the underground to acquire. and heavy metal guns aren't exactly as easy to hide as powders and plants.
they will likely have to take bigger risks to get them and make easy targets for sting operations. this will make guns not only difficult to get but consequently much more expensive (in the underground). of course illegal guns will exist, but likely just in the top echelons of gangs who mostly shoot at each other rather than every small time thug.
regulations are the middle ground where guns are not eliminated but a few loops you have to jump keep the guns in the hands of the good guys while still screwing the underground somewhat.
most of the time there isn't a need to shoot. the criminal is most likely, unless it's organized crime, not thinking it through enough to think someone else might have a weapon besides there target depending on the situation in which the civilian now has the drop on them. and that's even under the circumstances that they have a gun. and under your circumstances it again seems that the criminals are playing by the same rules which wouldn't make them criminals.
but once you make them illegal they become difficult to get. members of organized crime might be able to get them through their connections, but you run of the mill criminal won't be able to find them if the gun laws are strict enough. there is a reason the US is the only country not currently in a war that has regular mass shootings.
they would still have access. it's just not legal access. you would basically be punishing the people who play by the rules. which criminals do not.
people will still Rob. You don't need a gun for that, just desperation. the problem is it likely won't be foiled by a gun because if guns are prevalent, they will both be armed and it turns into a shootout blood bath.
take guns out and you will be down to hand to hand melee which can lead to a casualty or 2, but most often just some injuries and concussions.
what is better, some foiled robberies because the owner had a gun, or robberies that never took place because the criminal didn't have access to a gun?
You guys hate my responses only because they are true. None of you are ever in the presence of people who have guns without asking police permission.
You actually don't know shit about shooters and killers, yet you hate me because I do.
Guess what fools, they never shoot or kill anyone, because I tell them not to.
it doesn't have to be on every inch. and it still stands a better environment would certainly help. how many times has a gun stopped a bad situation? in my area I've heard plenty but I suspect such situations didn't hit the news, it certainly didn't around here, because who wants to know about a failed robbery, shooting, murder, ect. that's not what the news covers.
They figured out nothing.
In USA, we can have guns.
The only ones who have ever tried to take a gun from me was false god police.
There are men who never had a car taken from them by false god police, and I envy such men who never paid police for permission to own his own car.
People who worship false god police actually think that everything they buy actually belongs to police, so they won't fight for anything, not even their own gun.
You have to realize that if you commit one crime in Illinois, the false god police will never ever forgive you or trust you again, but everyone else will, including the streets.
Punishing and imprisoning someone for years, and then refusing to forgive them is what every false god police is paid to specialize in.
how would you be able to have them be everywhere? that school had armed security guards. it didn't prevent this. you can't hire enough people to guard every inch of the country. at some point you will need to recognize that the answer to gun violence is less guns, not more. everywhere else in the developed world figured that out.
I see a diabolical plot. Why must the coward only fear being killed or imprisoned by police? Yes, they are children. George Washington was only 11 before his fame and bravado put him on a $1 bill. Olympic shooting is still a gold medal sport. If you can overcome your hatred of mankind being allowed to invent guns, you can see why cowards are more afraid of children competing for a gold medal in shooting at the Olympics than he will ever be if you posted 500 policemen at every school.
police being there would certainly help don't you think? and then cleaning up the streets help make a better environment though that also relies on home and social life
I don't see how the police having better equipment would stop someone from buying an assault rifle and killing people. the shooter in Florida didn't break any laws until people started dying.
If I am telling you that those crooks are the top gun haters, I can also tell you why they have power to institute plots with a more massive effect than shooting only those who can't shoot back.
The homosexual sodomites who lurk inside the prisons waiting for new victims are the feature in the entire catastrophe. They don't want guns on either side. It's not that they entirely like the inside of the prisons. It's the fact of how difficult it is to beat, rob, rape the men who have guns versus those sent in there for them to molest.
well on the citizen side. they (us) just need to speak up more often. sometimes we see stuff we think is suspicious but decide not to act on it. on the police side I can only give a wild guess/opinion because I honestly am not an expert on this. but if we could get them better equipment and a bigger presence and training perhaps?
that would be the best all around solution to this problem but how exactly do you crack down on surprise terrorists? the ones that at least are on some kind of watch list should just have eyes on them capable of stopping them but what about a recently radicalized individual who wants to be in the paper?
that is a problem. though maybe a simple medium would be to crack down on the crime? would that not help both sides? good people can get a gun without too much hassle and crime goes down.
look at countries like the UK, Australia or Canada. gun crime rates are way lower. the idea that banning guns won't reduce the number of gun crimes is rediculous. mass shootings in countries with stricter gun laws are much less common. and mass attacks with other weapons almost always kill less people.
and frankly, most illegal guns in Canada come from the US where they are readily available.
Nobody was trying to beat and rape him. He is one of the gun hating cowards who wants to hide and lurk in a prison so he can beat and rape others. Homosexual sodomites hate guns more than anything, that's why they don't mind living in the jails.
The free world is like hell for them, because they are looking for unarmed nonmuslims to beat and rape. They have an extreme fear that the victim in the free world will have a gun, so they are causing mass chaos and attacking the guns, instead of admitting they want to beat, rape, and rob.
less with a pistol and it depends on knives. people are actually more scared of a knives than guns. though with proper thought a knife could be just as successful though isn't as simple ableit. I agree we need to look at how we can help make sure stuff like this happens less but I would prefer not to make it harder on decent people.
depends on explosives. what it's made out of where ect. but with poison simply buy enough rat poison over time and gain access to a towns water supply and you make a pretty big dent. both of course require more planning but both can do more damage and are less likely to come back at you. I'm not saying the gun wasn't effective but making it harder to get one legally will just hurt gun owners and be an irritation to criminals that will only delay them.
I can understand that some people would still view restricting guns as not the solution...
but to claim (as the disagrees apparently do) that he would have killed as many without the gun seems ludicrously hillarious. unless of course we are talking about more regulated things like large doses of poisons or explosives. and even those take more planning and execution then the easy point and click carnage of an assault rifle.
wanting something bad enough won't change, but being able to get it can. how many people do you think he could have killed with a knife or even a pistol? probably 2-5
Isn't the crime rate in NYC dropping?
well density of population is definitely a factor but what about crime statistics? I mean we can ban anything we want but if somebody wants something bad enough they get it. criminals will break the law and do what they want regardless but having laws against regular citizens protecting themselves seems absurd to me. a lot of discussion has been done about nyc specifically how it is now a "criminal friendly" environment. I think that's a fair way to describe living out here.
the point of this debate is that a certain party is fighting against any regulation claiming some sort of slippery slope fallacy.
would you prefer it be easy for everyone to be armed in a dense city like nyc?
poison, I'm not so sure. he would have to sneak past armed security guards to access drinking water and would need to get massive amounts. explosives are also very difficult to acquire and usually have fewer deaths.
both of those are much more regulated then guns. a gun is just point, click, repeat. sometimes it's just point and hold.
at first I was confused but I agree now, I misinterpreted your statement before, so where do you land on the subject of regulating firearms more strictly or banning them?
Cowards are being protected by people who refuse to discuss the fact that it's cowardly to shoot only when no one can shoot back. If one was in fact deranged they would not immediately surrender to police and ask for the nicest jail cell available. Cowards actually like living in jails.
who's protecting who?
He killed because he is a coward in the cowardly alliance that boasts in only shooting people who can't return fire.
I find it strange that police stations and Fort Knox is never attacked by these so called deranged shooters.
I call this cowards protecting another cowards right to shoot only at those who cannot return fire.
I didn't even see your post but I agree
while I can clearly see your point I disagree to some extent it is certainly partly fault of the technology in question but also our regulation of it. to drive a car you need more of an education than to buy a gun.
car: learners permit test
drivers ed or private lessons through a licensed school
gun:criminal background check
age requirement varying from state to state
fingerprints for permit. but few places if ant require training or a phsycological/mental health test of some sort.
granted anyone can lie , a few more hoops to jump through to get a lethal weapon capable of the same devastation as a whole fleet of muskets wouldn't be a bad idea. (i should say I live in NYC where as a law abiding citizen acquiring a gun for concealed carry is a futile effort even though it's possible on paper) and to give one takeaway from this whole thing, while I don't entirely disagree I think there is a less black and white way to state this
could probably kill more with explodsives. or poison depending on where he distributes it or other such things. but he definitely shouldn't have been able to get a gun