|
|
Post by campbell on Oct 9, 2017 1:30:07 GMT
@stoughton I feel like we need to follow the constitution to a certain degree, but in this case we need to make restrictions on gun control because mass shooting are happening way to much and innocent loved ones are being killed when gun control laws could be enforced
@neely No one can really tell what drives a person to the limit that they murder someone. The shouldn't be anything done different with public events because we can't live in fear of something like this happening all the time. To control crimes like these mass shooting all we need to do is regulate the purchasing of automatic weapons
|
|
|
|
Post by sierranagy on Oct 9, 2017 1:32:18 GMT
@neely
In response to your questions about security, I believe that there should be an increase in security in many more public places, specifically those where there will be many people attending such as the concerts and hotels you mentioned. I wrote about the fact that we should focus more on the security of our nation rather than adding more and more to the regulations on firearms that criminals are just going to ignore anyways in my own original post. I feel that adding security in more places would be worthwhile for both the well being of U.S. citizens, as well as the economy, due to the fact that more jobs would be created.
|
|
|
|
Post by murdock on Oct 9, 2017 2:01:22 GMT
Unfortunately, this issue is extremely contentious and will never be brought to an end. According to ProCon.org, there are 88.8 guns per 100 people in the United States alone, equaling roughly 270,00,000 guns total. It would be nearly impossible to ban guns in the US because they stem all the way back to colonial history, revolutions, frontier expansion and to our Second Amendment. Manufacturers quit making automatic guns in 1934 when the National Firearms Act was passed. Although it is still possible to purchase the guns that were built before 1934 it is a long process of federal background checks and a $200 fee. There is no way to eliminate the vast amounts of guns in the US, 48% of the world’s guns to be exact. The British news source says there are 400,000 guns stolen a year in America… meaning that the evil people in the world will still be able to find weapons even if there is a ban put on them. No matter how strict our background checks and qualifications become there will always be unqualified people in America with guns. According to New York Times, the Las Vegas shooter used a semi-automatic gun with an extra piece called a “bump stock” that increases the function of the gun to resemble an automatic; shooting at a rapid speed without having to repeatedly pull the trigger back. Other countries have tried banning automatic and semi-automatic weapons but have not seen much better results. For example, France tragically experienced four mass shootings in the year of 2015 involving illegal automatic guns. With or without laws and regulations there will be shootings. Fox News says, “There were 29 such shootings in the U.S. during the eight years of the Obama administration; 26 in Europe” proving that there was not much of difference in those eight years although Europe had laws passed.
Will banning automatics guns make a difference if there are pieces like the “bump stock” to enhance semi-automatics? Where would the government be able to start if they did decide to ban these guns? What would they do with the ones that they do collect?
|
|
|
|
Post by Caldwell on Oct 9, 2017 2:06:25 GMT
@emmamcdermott
I believe that there should be more restrictions put into place for people to even be able to purchase these devices called "bump-stocks". Since they are being used to transform a semi-automatic device into practically an automatic gun. Although we are never going to officially be able to stop these tragic events from happening hopefully this can reduce the rate. For me I am placing my safety above our right to bear arms in hope that further restrictions will decrease the amount on people causing great emotional destruction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gills on Oct 9, 2017 2:26:02 GMT
When tragedies such as the one that occurred in Las Vegas happen gun control is always a topic that seems to resurface. Some think that limiting possession in the United States will end these mass shootings but I believe that changing gun laws will have little to no effect on whether or not these tragedies will occur. According to Fox News, Europe, which has much stricter gun laws, has actually had more bloodshed than America from these types of attacks. Also, there has been fewer attacks involving fully-automatic firearms in the U.S. than in Europe. I firmly believe that stricter gun laws will not necessarily reduce the amount of shootings that happen in the U.S. I feel that if someone is motivated enough to commit a crime such as this then they are also motivated enough to find a way around gun restrictions to acquire the firearms that would be restricted. For example, an article from theguardian.com states that around 400,000 firearms are stolen each year in the U.S. Who knows what these firearms are being used for and this shows that laws aren’t going to stop those who seek to possess a firearm from getting one. However, I still believe that there should be some restrictions on certain types of firearms such as fully-automatic firearms as well as on those who can buy them. Specifically, a convicted criminal that is known to have a violent history should not be able to legally purchase a firearm. Overall, I feel that shootings such as this do not have a solution that can be found in limiting or restricting guns. The topic of gun control can become a very heated debate because there is no proven solution to solve gun violence and everyone has their own opinion on what should be done. When there is so many differing views there is bound to be a lot of arguments surrounding the subject. There are always going to be people who desire to have guns restricted and those who are sticklers for their gun rights. But, I feel that both sides are wrong and that there is no way to stop mass shootings entirely. If there’s a will there’s a way even for criminals.
|
|
|
|
Post by murdock on Oct 9, 2017 2:26:28 GMT
@henry-
I could not have written it any better. Like you wrote at the end, if a person's intent is to kill, there is no absolute way to stop them. Evil killers will either find guns to use illegally or construct other ways to murder, unfortunately. Also, as you said, there is no correct answer to this topic, and it will outlive all of us as long as there is bad intentions in the world.
@stoughton-
Regarding your ending question: the Second Amendment stands for a multitude of reasons. I agree on the fact that it was written when mass shootings were unheard of and probably not even considered, meaning again, that is was not written to protect those who choose to use their arms wrongly. Of course any person in a stable mental condition is going to support any notion to protect loved ones and other innocent people. But will banning guns from "everyone" help when someone with bad intentions gets a weapon illegally and goes after those who are unarmed? There is no way to stop this. "The only people who can fight bad guys with guns are good guys with guns", sadly it is the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gills on Oct 9, 2017 2:33:03 GMT
sierranagy I think that increasing security is a more reasonable response than adding more gun regulations. I think that it is easier for law enforcement to find someone who is planning hurt people than it is to stop them from acquiring guns. I believe that no matter how many regulation you put on guns you can't stop someone from getting a gun if they really want one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gills on Oct 9, 2017 2:37:51 GMT
campbell I think that citizens should be allowed to carry semi-automatic rifles. Also, I don't think that banning automatic guns will prevent mass shootings. There are always people that will go out of their way to get these types of guns illegally and banning them won't stop these people.
|
|
|
|
Post by valera on Oct 9, 2017 3:55:04 GMT
According to CNN, “Americans own more gun per capita than residents of any other country”. Statistics show that the USA has 89 firearms for every 100 people in the country. The excess of firearms in the country is an arguable factor in the high rates of mass murders. Gun control could slightly decrease these rates, however, it is impossible to regulate the hundreds of millions of guns in the country. It is also arguable that if someone has the motivation to kill a group of human beings, they will probably not have an issue with going through the troubles of illegally obtaining a dangerous firearm. However, doing nothing will not help the situation at all. A way to combat these horrific crime rates would be to increase background checks and have severe limitations on who can or cannot own a firearm. For example, criminals and people with mental illness should not be allowed to purchase or own guns. Completely getting rid of the second amendment is pointless. This is because it would anger many people and many gun-owners. It would also not change the fact that people are still going to obtain firearms illegally if they really want to. Some stricter limitations and restrictions are important because although they will not completely change the issue, they help just a little bit and certainly have more effect that doing nothing and sitting on the argument that any measure or form of gun control is futile. My question is which firearms do you think should be banned and why or what restrictions should be put on them? All, none, many?
|
|
|
|
Post by valera on Oct 9, 2017 3:59:17 GMT
@gills I agree with your post and many aspects of it. I agree with what you said about criminals, "when there's a will, there's a way". I think that if someone had the incentive to commit a mass murder illegally obtaining a gun won't be completely out of their spectrum of reason (if you can even call it that).
@mcdermott I agree with what you said that AMericans can not have the best of bioth worlds. I also agree with your post and I liked what you said about gun control and stricter measures.
|
|
|
|
Post by McIlwain on Oct 9, 2017 21:04:34 GMT
When it comes to conversations about public policies like gun control, there will never be one answer for it. That is the case for many situations in the real world. Besides the fact that there's always going to be someone who is angry about the situation, there's also the fact that there are pros and cons to both sides of the argument. Especially with the Las Vegas shooting, people have been saying that the United States needs to ban firearms. Period. I saw a post on Instagram where someone said it was time to ban guns after the Columbine shooting, after Sandy Hook, after the South Carolina church shooting, etc. Their point was that guns should have been banned a while ago, and this is the "final straw". However, part of what makes America so "American" is the 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms. That Amendment was created because of the situation we were in in the formation of our country against the British Empire. It was the militias that triumphed in the American Revolution. On the other hand, this freedom can unfortunately lead to events like Las Vegas. Although I believe that this was a horrific event that could have easily been avoided, I do not think there is one specific answer for it - or for any shootings in that case. Yes, they should undergo psychiatric tests before owning a firearm, and yes you should have to be a certain age before you can own it. I do not necessarily agree with the selling of rifles in places like Walmart, but that may be a topic of discussion for another day. My point is that this isn't going to stop altogether. Even if we do restrict gun rights, there will be "bad guys" that find a way to get to them and go through with it anyway. We can make laws after laws after laws, but there will never be a law that changes a person's way of thinking. So the real question is: other than going about the situation as a total ban of firearms, how else could our government attempt to solve this issue? Should this be a state-wide matter? Or is this across the country?
|
|
|
|
Post by McIlwain on Oct 9, 2017 21:08:39 GMT
@murdock If the government were to come into our homes searching for firearms, it would probably look a lot like Nazi Germany. This may seem like a very extreme comparison, but think about it. The government would send federal agents, maybe even soldiers, to your door insisting entry. Upon entering, they would go through your entire house searching for firearms. They would go through your personal items, closets, drawers, jewelry boxes, anywhere. It would be a major infraction of privacy. Because of the events that would occur from that, I highly doubt the government will go about it in that way. I fear more of what would happen then than if we decided to keep the guns and nothing changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by McIlwain on Oct 9, 2017 21:30:22 GMT
@stoughton Although this type of thing doesn't happen every day, I would still say there's some sense of urgency. We shouldn't just treat every attack like an average everyday thing. These are human lives being lost. Humans with families that care about them. So there is some sense of urgency to fix this issue, I just don't know what t"fixing" really covers. It's a very hard thing to say we can just fix and forget about. It's always going to be there, that's the sad truth of the whole thing.
|
|
