|
|
Post by rudish on Oct 8, 2017 23:36:16 GMT
@gilbert
I completely agree with your stance on the topic. People are going to get guns whether it’s legal or not. Regulations on guns will only make it harder for good people that use guns for things like hunting and personal protection to get them, and won’t change the illegal selling and usage of guns.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dorrier on Oct 8, 2017 23:40:12 GMT
With many mass shootings as of late many people are left wondering what is the cause of these horrid events. Many people believe that if we created stricter laws on guns and gun owners then that would resolve the problem at hand, it won't fix it completely. Especially since many gun owners have their guns for hunting or self-defense purposes and obey all the laws put in place by the government. These dismal events will never be completely absent from our society, however they could be limited. According to USA Today the weapon the shooter used most was a modified assault rifle of and unspecified caliber. The weapons used in the San Bernardino and Sandy Hook shootings were also assault rifles. The US needs to shift it's focus to stricter gun laws on assault rifles. According to slate.com there are at least 3,220,000 AR-15s in the United States. Nobody needs an assault rifle for hunting or for self-defense. The modified bump-stock the shooter used in the shooting was completely legal and he modified it completely himself, that way it would fire like a fully automatic rifle. The US needs to address the fact that the shooter was completely able to modify his firearm by himself to function like an illegal firearm. We need to stop this terror and since we can't stop the people and their thoughts and motives, then we need to limit their ability to harm others. Limiting civilians ability to possess and modify assault rifles is the best way to curb these horrible events.
What do you think the best way to limit the mass shootings and how should the US go about doing this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mulneix on Oct 8, 2017 23:50:38 GMT
The recent mass shooting in Las Vegas has renewed the long-standing debate on the regulation of firearms. The debates on this topic usually leads no were and solutions are rarely given to fix the problem other than the broad argument that guns need more regulations. Even if there is a solution people are usually not willing to change law to implement it. The large number of mass shootings and incidents of gun violence in America shows that there is clearly a problem, but due to the sheer number of weapons available to the citizens of the united states (310 million according to CNN) regulating the type of gun, the amount you can by, and what you can do with them would do almost nothing since access to firearms would still be very high making it virtually impossible to stop someone from doing what they want. To try and prevent gun violence the government would have to close loopholes, make stricter laws of the sale of firearms between private citizens, and implement strict background checks that include a mental health examination. With the number of guns being so high and people who would not stand for many if any regulation for guns there is something people can still do; put more enthuses on mental health and the culture we live in. With two thirds of deaths from guns being suicides (according to the guardian) mental health is clearly a problem. Combine mental health problems with a culture that likes weapons capable of mass destruction; theirs bound to be problems. To change the culture people would have to be taught the dangers of firearms early on and parents would have to instill the idea that a firearm should only be used in dire situations and never to harm innocent people. These ideas would have to be in everyday things and exposure to violence would have to be minimized. Changing culture to be less violent would take a while but would cost nothing but the time it takes to accomplish it.
How far in the future will it be before an effective regulation is put in place that minimizes gun violence?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mulneix on Oct 8, 2017 23:58:21 GMT
@dorrier
The best way to limit mass shootings is to take care of the mental ill, make sure they do not get a hold of firearms,and make a culture that doesn't idolize guns or violence. The Government could implement programs like we have against bulling or drugs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cole Helzlsouer on Oct 9, 2017 0:05:28 GMT
In recent events with the shooting in Los Vegas brings up the topic of gun rights / gun control again. Guns "should" be always available to the general population of the United States, but is it fair for people who are angered to screw it up for everybody else. The people who "should" be able to own guns are people who can be responsible and understands the dangers that come with guns. Along with responsibility you must be knowledgeable on different types of guns and how to use them. Now for the topic at hand the shooter in Los Vegas used a semi automatic gun because automatic rifles have more restrictions and some are even illegal. Because of this the man put a "bump stock" on his gun witch allows the gun to have a faster fire rate. Although many people believe that guns are the reason for this violence this is not true. Guns cannot fire themselves and it is the corrupt individual using the firearm to create this chaos. With this being said guns should have more control as in a person should get a background check and they should also check to see if you have any family history with violence or anything of that nature. This will not fix violence. If we put more control on guns then people with find other ways to create chaos but we can at least try to stop as much crime from happening as possible.
Is it fair to the general population that people who enjoy using guns and are responsible with guns be punished because of these types of people who do horrible things?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cole Helzlsouer on Oct 9, 2017 0:10:19 GMT
"So to our political opponents, congratulations — this is the world you wanted. We just have to live in it. If we can." These sentences are from the end of the USA today's article title, "Las Vegas shooting: The gun fight is over and the gun-rights crowd won". This article was about the recent mass shooting in Las Vegas and how the government should tighten a grip on guns and weapons. The problem I have with this article is the last part(which I started this response with). They make it out that the people that want less gun laws are responsible for these tragedies. When talking about people who are pro-guns and people that want more gun laws and which is better I like to think about it as if the guns were drugs. Even if you make them illegal people will still illegally get these "drugs" and "use" them. But also if you make them more easily to get then more people will use them and "abuse" them. There is no real win win to these types of situations. If terrorists or psychotic people want to commit these acts they will probably find a way even with laws against them. What makes me sick is that people strictly use these tragedies to further there political agenda. An example of this is when Hillary Clinton tweeted out on October second(referring to the Las Vegas Shooting),"The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots. Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get." Why would you ever do this, this wasn't a long time after the shooting and referring to it a few years or mouths later this was a DAY LATER. Instead of coming together you split the country up even more. My question for you is why do you think people use tragedies to further there social agenda? People do this because they care for nothing but themselves and would rather kill to obtain power than to use their head because everyone is selfish |
|
|
|
Post by Mulneix on Oct 9, 2017 0:11:52 GMT
Donaldson Exposure to anything would affect ones opinion and with guns if someone grew up with guns it would be a normal part of life to have them and use them while someone who has not grown up with them and never owned one would find it to be a strange concept to use one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cole Helzlsouer on Oct 9, 2017 0:13:03 GMT
With many mass shootings as of late many people are left wondering what is the cause of these horrid events. Many people believe that if we created stricter laws on guns and gun owners then that would resolve the problem at hand, it won't fix it completely. Especially since many gun owners have their guns for hunting or self-defense purposes and obey all the laws put in place by the government. These dismal events will never be completely absent from our society, however they could be limited. According to USA Today the weapon the shooter used most was a modified assault rifle of and unspecified caliber. The weapons used in the San Bernardino and Sandy Hook shootings were also assault rifles. The US needs to shift it's focus to stricter gun laws on assault rifles. According to slate.com there are at least 3,220,000 AR-15s in the United States. Nobody needs an assault rifle for hunting or for self-defense. The modified bump-stock the shooter used in the shooting was completely legal and he modified it completely himself, that way it would fire like a fully automatic rifle. The US needs to address the fact that the shooter was completely able to modify his firearm by himself to function like an illegal firearm. We need to stop this terror and since we can't stop the people and their thoughts and motives, then we need to limit their ability to harm others. Limiting civilians ability to possess and modify assault rifles is the best way to curb these horrible events. What do you think the best way to limit the mass shootings and how should the US go about doing this? The people should not be punished for these incidences the government should use their resources to investigate the people who want to buy guns in further detail. Although this can not diminish all gun crimes it can reduce them severely. |
|
|
|
Post by Donaldson on Oct 9, 2017 0:15:52 GMT
@mulinex
If the government were to regulate firearms more strictly, people with a mental health disorder would still get guns illegally no matter what ways possible. Look at drugs for example, they are everywhere but they are also illegal.in the end higher regulations would just hurt the law abiding citizen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Donaldson on Oct 9, 2017 0:38:19 GMT
@helzlsouer
I completely agree with you. Why do we have to punish the general population when they aren't the issue. Through any regulation, criminals will find a loophole in it and thus gun regulation would not work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dorrier on Oct 9, 2017 0:43:56 GMT
@dudich
People use tragedies to further their political agenda because that is the point at which many people look for an answer to these problems. I believe it was completely wrong for Clinton to say this just a day after the massacre that happened while many people are still grieving. She should be using her social standing to raise support for Vegas, however she was very selfish and tried to help herself instead of helping others in a very trying time for many Americans.
@l. Pierce
The shooter didn't use automatic assault rifles, instead he legally modified a semi-auto assault rifle. The best way to remove some of the violence is to make it illegal to modify guns to make them shoot like illegal full auto firearms. I agree that it is completely insane that someone was able to get into the hotel with 17 firearms. We definitely need better security and that should not happen. If the hotel security or someone working at the hotel noticed his arsenal then this entire situation could have been avoided.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Pierce on Oct 9, 2017 1:39:27 GMT
The destruction and division left by the mass shooting in Las Vegas has made the gun control versus gun rights debate a hot topic. Some people say there is compelling government interest to limit gun possession in the United States. Quite frankly there is absolutely no reason to limit guns for people that have not committed crimes or aren't mentally ill. It is the people that do terrible things not the guns. And why should a few people ruin the privilege of owning a gun legally for the people that don't go on shooting sprees and commit crimes. The government plays a role that almost can't be described because it is so vast. They dictate what can happen with this public policy topic regardless of how compelling each sides arguments are. The focus should be how did the person get the firearm. Was it a registered firearm, if it isn't gun control is useless because it can only control licensed firearms and people who go through the system legally. If it was a legal and registered firearm then they have an argument. There should be extensive background checks, criminals of any kind should not be allowed to purchase guns. People with mental health problems should not be allowed either for they could become a liability as well. You have to take into consideration that even if you have the best background checks and limit criminals and the mentally ill from legally buying the firearms there are ways to get them illegally. So in the long run, gun control would weed out a few of the people that want to cause harm but it would mostly affect the people that already abide by the law.
What steps could we as a nation take to prevent or limit the number of mass shooting/ gun related deaths?
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Pierce on Oct 9, 2017 1:43:44 GMT
@cole Helzlsouer
Is it fair to the general population that people who enjoy using guns and are responsible with guns be punished because of these types of people who do horrible things?
No it is not fair and a few people are going to ruin it for the entire country.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Pierce on Oct 9, 2017 1:46:44 GMT
@shaffer
Do you think if we as a country made it mandatory for gun owners to take gun safety classes to protect them selves against others would decrease the gun related deaths?
Yes I believe that it would and that this should be instituted into our lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davis on Oct 9, 2017 2:21:08 GMT
In the wake of the current shooting in Las Vegas everyone turns to the issue of gun control. Conversations start everywhere about if we have enough gun control laws and why we don’t have more laws limiting guns. But are more laws against guns the right way to try and fix things? Even though our country has a high rate of “11.1 deaths per 100,00 people” in the U.S, as stated in Don’t Let The Las Vegas Massacre Obscure the More Common Types of Gun Violence, adding more gun laws wont change that. The only way to really stop gun violence would be going door to door and taking everyone’s guns but that is never going to happen due to our Second Amendment which is the right to bear arms. Even when something is banned people still find a way to get their hands on it. For example, certain drugs in America are illegal but people still buy and sell them illegally every day. A step the government could take in more gun control is making the sale of bump stocks, kits to make your gun a fully automatic, and fully auto guns illegal but even doing that people will still get their hands on them if they want to. For example, according to Fox News, in France all semi-automatic and automatic rifles are illegal but “All four of the 2015 mass public shootings in France involved machine guns, including the 130 people killed in November of that year in multiple attacks including one at a concert venue”, which just goes to show that making these things legal isn’t the answer. Also, the more the government limits guns the more it will take away from all the people in America who use them in unharmful ways (depending on if you think hunting is harmful). According to The Washington Post there are a little over 100 guns per 100 people in the US and most all those guns are not used in harmful ways. They are people’s hobbies, sport, and ways for people to get food. More gun control laws are not the answer to make the US safer and minimize mass shootings.
|
|
