Orlando. Isn't it time for banning fire arms in the US ?

1. 0

   PeterStipposted 7 years ago

   Orlando. Isn't it time for banning fire arms in the US ?
   
   Almost every day there is a mass shooting in the US. A mass shooting is 4 or more people shot. (http://www.shootingtracker.com/)
   Australia banned guns. Result - no more mass shootings.
   It's so simple. Less guns on the street, less mass shootings.
   Isn't it time to act and ban guns ?

   replyreport
2. 0

   RTalloniposted 7 years ago

   It is important to note that Australia did not "ban guns" though they have banned all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, as well as having a tightly restrictive system of licensing and ownership controls. 
   
   To say that they have ended mass shootings is a bit preemptive since those who intend to do such things will plot and plan the means to accomplish their goals and they will do so for a long time. 
   
   The following link is an article that would be hugely helpful to discussions on this issue: http://time.com/4172274/what-its-like-t … n-control/

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the article. I can understand hunting lisences, but to me it seems dangerous to give people in cities a license.To many people cramped up, accidents happen too easily. Restricting licenses does have an effect on mass shootings. So why not?

      replyreport
   2. 0

      RTalloniposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Why not should be answered in light of the truth. It is not true that almost everyday there are mass shootings in the USA. There are indeed far too many, and the issues need to be addressed, but only in light of truth about surrounding facts.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately it's true, take a look at https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data for the facts.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      RTalloniposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The majority listed there are unknown shooters related to gang/crime activity with drugs/alcohol being prime factors, not what most typically consider mass-shooters. However, respecting drugs/alcohol/gun laws is never on any of their the agendas.

      replyreport
3. 49

   bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years ago

   Banning firearms wouldn't be any more successful that prohibition was to stopping people from drinking alcohol.
   We have class 1 drugs that are illegal and felonies to use, and yet we have the drug cartel smuggling in billions of dollars of these drugs.
   Making something illegal doesn't really result in the illegal thing being stopped. Take iLLEGAL Aliens, crossing the border illegally is a crime, how did that work to stop the illegal crossings?
   
   Peter Says "Result - No more mass shootings"
   
   "Less guns on the street, less mass shootings"
   
   What it would mean is that law abiding citizens wouldn't have any guns, but they wouldn't be committing crimes with them in the first place.
   The prisons and jails are filled with people that had and used guns, both legal and illegal. Many of them are gang members, and these are the people that kill even to get initiation into a gang.
   
   The US is not Australia, New Zealand, Canada, or GB.
   They have small populations, people aren't rushing to get into those countries.
   
   Although the terrorists find it comfortable to blow things up in GB.
   So do you want terrorists to switch from shootings, to blowing things up? Simple store bought chemicals can be made into IEDs.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Most mass shooting gunman aren't terrorists but psychopaths. It would help a lot if they couldn't get their hands on a gun that easy.
      Don't compare alcohol with firearms. One bullet is deadly one beer isn't.

      replyreport
   2. 49

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You just don't get it.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I guess not. Why is it that in Europe there are far less mass shootings? Simple, it's harder to buy fire arms.
      Criminals will always get there hands on guns, but you should not encourage them to buy guns legally.

      replyreport
   4. 49

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Peter
      Europe is where they use gas, and explosives.
      France has the strongest gun control and yet it is plagued with terrorists.
      Europe has too many problems to discuss here.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Plagued with terrorists ! Are you trying to tell me there is everyday a terorist atack in France.
      Anyway, the subject is mass shootings, not terrorists. And mass shootings are  committed by psychopaths not terrorists in most of the cases.

      replyreport
   6. 49

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Are you denying the fact that the Muslim Terrorists are not the ones we are talking about. France has more terrorist attacks than the US, and it is 1/5 the population.
      Muslim Terrorists may be psychopaths, but they are also Muslims,&they are the

      replyreport
   7. 0

      PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Brad , Im talking about mass shootings not terrorist attacks. most mass shootings aren't terrorist attacks but Lunatics in the possession of a firearm.

      replyreport
   8. 49

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Then why did you reference Orlando in your ? And all the mass shootings in the world are a very small % of gun owners. But terrorist attacks no matter how small is an attack on the country, and Muslims are the most common of these terrorists.

      replyreport
4. 0

   LoliHeyposted 7 years ago

   Actually, I heard that the homicidal rates in Australia are higher now than before.  So the banning didn't really save peoples lives, did it?  It's not the guns we should ban, it's the terrorists.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      True, compared with 18 years ago, but so it is in the US. Fact is, there are no more mass shootings in Australia since 18 years.
      And tell me how would you recognise a terrorist? How would you ban an American born and bread in the US?

      replyreport
5. 72

   Old-Empresarioposted 7 years ago

   Literally millions of Americans own AR-15s and they aren't shooting up nightclubs. There must be a middle ground that doesn't involve banning them

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, I think the legislation should be more strict. I can understand that farmers want a gun, or sportsman. But I can not understand why somebody living in the city needs an automatic rifle. I think it's time to look at the laws again.

      replyreport
6. 84

   tamarawilhiteposted 7 years ago

   1. Banning guns doesn't stop Muslim terrorists from killing people; look at the Brussels bombing, Paris bombing, Boston Marathon bombings, etc.
   2. Banning guns doesn't prevent Muslims from killing people more mundane ways, like the French policeman stabbed the same day as the Orlando shooting and atheists regularly hacked to death by Muslim mobs in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
   3. Banning guns leaves women vulnerable to rape, when only a gun equalizes force between her and a would be rapist. Telling women to pee on themselves, cry and blow whistles is telling them to be terrified victims, when empowerment means the ability to kill a would-be rapist.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      A bombing is not a mass shooting.
      Most of the mass shootings aren't done by Muslims.
      A tighter assault  rifle law will stop children shooting there parents or fellow class mates.

      replyreport