Why doesn't the US do something about mass shootings?

Polaris said:
If someone is so dangerous that they should be prevented from have a gun, then charge them with something and lock them up if they're convicted! If you wouldn't strip them of any other rights using the same standard, but because it's guns you're willing to overlook that, that's the definition of special pleading.
Click to expand...

Well that is what you get when you have an insane set of circumstances where citizens have a right to own and use something that is designed for the sole purpose of killing another person.

When gun ownership is a PRIVILEGE (not a right like it is in your country) then those who grant that privilege are allowed to specify the criteria you must meet in order to be granted that privilege.
 
TheAdversary said:
People have become hysterical when it comes to terrorism. In the entire Western world, and not confined to just IS or other Islamic groups.
And the hysteria is a sign that the terrorists are successful. One of the primary objectives of terrorism, to establish fear and confusion, has been achieved.
It's becoming clearer that the terrorists, even if they're not a coherent group as a whole, are winning. This realization is going to incite more
hysteria. In Holland, where I live, they recently closed part of a high way because some random guy in a bus mumbled some incoherent things that some
people thought contained the word 'bomb'. It's insane, it's a war. And if government and society are crumbling, it's not a bad idea to invest in a gun
and start learning how to shoot, fight etc. I practice my fighting routines daily; I have practice weapons, not real guns but useful for target practice,
and swords. I invested in an entire military outfit and I went camping in the woods to learn how to survive. Sure, people think you're crazy or just
another conspiracy/survivalist but I think this time the cry-wolf is actually valid. Mass hysteria is just another solid indicator for something seriously
off in our society. In the words of Michael Corleone : They might win.
Click to expand...

I think you will find it is mainly the US that has become hysterical about terrorism. Mainly because dudes like Bush wanted it

This is odd because they

a) are relatively isolated on the other side of the world
b) have far far more deaths from their own people

Meant to add

Daily fighting routines?

Far out mate
 
smartcooky said:
When gun ownership is a PRIVILEGE (not a right like it is in your country) then those who grant that privilege are allowed to specify the criteria you must meet in order to be granted that privilege.
Click to expand...

Thus, unexpectedly, the thread inched closer to the founders' intent in codifying a right to keep and bear arms.
 
truethat said:
That's not going to work though. We have a second Amendment that guarantees us the right to bear arms.

I still think that many foreigners do not understand WHY people are so gung ho on the 2nd Amendment issue. It's a unique thing in the US. (Please note I am not suggesting that it is in any way superior to other countries or that other countries don't have their own.)

However, to Americans, the Bill of Rights are considered sacrosanct. If you **** with one of them you open the door to **** with the rest of them.

Many people seem to think that the conservatives in this country are all about the government controlling everything. They are not. They are very suspicious of the government and want the government to stay out of people's lives.

Their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is to protect citizens from Government tyranny. Every time I've seen this topic come up, no matter how many times this is pointed out the other side just totally ignores it. But it's the main reason that they are clinging to their guns.

Not for protection from someone breaking into their home or a wild gunman shooting up a shopping mall.

But to create a deterrent for the GOVERNMENT to enact tyranny in this country with military rule. When you look at how the government tossed the 4th and 5th Amendments out the window for Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay you can see why these people view the potential for Government Tyranny as imminent and not some far off random possibility.

So there are two issues at play here. One is that they won't give up their guns and that they think they should have access to the best military weapons they can get their hands on. If everyone could only carry handguns or rifles, it would be next to impossible to stand up to a government attack on civilians. (And yes they do believe that this could happen)

Second, once you mess with ONE of the Bill of Rights, it opens the door for messing with the others. And that is something that is taken very seriously.

We saw this happen after 911 when John Ashcroft pushed the idea that the government needed to be able to have the right to hack into people's computers for Homeland Security reasons.

People were willing to give up their protected rights because of fear mongering. So this is exactly how they see the push to ban weapons. It's use of fear mongering to try to get people to give up their guns. And to them this is the first step in Government Tyranny. (This is why they referred to Sandy Hook as a "false flag" and said that 911 was an inside job.)

This is how they see the world. I think many foreigners confuse "conservatives" with people who would vote for Trump because he's racist and says the things they feel inside. The main argument I've seen for the approval of Trump is that he's not a "Washington Player" and his lack of experience is portrayed as "non corrupted" He's not a "government player."

So all the homicides in this country mean basically nothing to them. They consider it par for the course and worth the risk.

That's why we need to address the mass shootings. (And why they think the mass shootings are false flags designed to get us to give up ALL guns) They will not be willing to consider any sort of policy that doesn't allow the good guys to keep their guns.

And their angle is that MENTAL ILLNESS is the problem. Not gun ownership.

Here's an interview with Piers Morgan and you can see what I mean. He totally ignores what Ben Shapiro is saying and spins out in an emotional argument. But from the get go the guy starts talking about "that's why my ancestors are ashes in Europe"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHIQtxLCgrM
Click to expand...

You seriously think this could happen?

You honestly think American soldiers would go round killing their own people even if ordered to?

That is some low opinion of the forces
 
Planigale said:
You are absolutely right. Other people do not really understand why americans view having guns as a human right, whilst enslaving black people, ethnic cleansing of native americans, denying women equality was not a breach of the bill of rights. I mean it did a really good job of protecting those people against the tyranny of government.

Do USAians really believe that if they surrendered their guns that the UN or the illuminati will march in? Other countries manage perfectly well with regarding gun ownership as privilege and have had no trouble with their government.

Even if you believe in the right to have guns it is completely incomprehensible to the rest of the world why a complete registration of gun ownership's an infringement of that right surely this is part of being well regulated.

My guess is that if all legally held arms in 'civilian' hands mysteriously disappeared overnight robbery might transiently rise but deaths would fall a crook with a gun would be in less of a hurry to shoot if confident his victim had no gun. If the only people allowed to have guns were LEO's then it would be easier to convict for illegal gun possession. yes it might take a few years but the end result would be fewer children killing, fewer suicides, and probably fewer mass fatalities.

I know this will not happen, but it really is incomprehensible to the rest of the world the beliefs about guns and 'rights'. (Yes I know the US is a huge country and its people have disparate beliefs and many will have anti-gun views, lets face it Penn was a Quaker and you cannot get more hard line anti-gun than Quakers.)
Click to expand...


If you took the away the arrogant tone of voice in this post and the dumb pandering back to the slavery and Native Americans (since we are discussing Modern views) probably a lot what you are saying here could be relevant.

Non Americans don't really understand this. To others it looks insane. And to some Americans as well.

But as I have said repeatedly on this site "Understanding something is not the same thing as agreeing with it." If you want to change something, you have to understand it first and deal with the reality of it, not the way it's "supposed to be." The reality of it is this perception.

As to the bolded YES THEY DO. Not all Americans of course, but those who are fighting the hardest for gun rights. They bring it up ALL THE TIME and people just ignore it but it's the crux of their argument. Like I said before, look how Ben Shapiro makes this point with Piers Morgan. But Piers Morgan doesn't address it all. Then Ben Shapiro makes the entire rest of his argument from this basis.

Most people who debate this without understanding this treat the people who want guns as if they want guns to protect them from burglars or muggers or robbers etc. That's why they miss the entire point.

For example, if we banned assault weapons that means that the government could roll troops into a town with no assault weapons and the people would only have hand guns and rifles to protect themselves. So they'd easily be taken over. What did Ben Shapiro say about this? "That's why my family is now ASHES"

And as I pointed out, for people who hold this view, their reaction to the air port body scans, and the computer hacking theories, clearly shows that they feel the government is something we need to be protected from because it is always over stepping its bounds.

The biggest misconception I see about pro gun people is based on a misconception of Conservative Republican.
 
Last edited:
cullennz said:
You seriously think this could happen?

You honestly think American soldiers would go round killing their own people even if ordered to?

That is some low opinion of the forces
Click to expand...

Look at this video right around 3:40 and listen to what Shapiro says. Again this is not MY VIEW, it's what they think.

Notice how Piers Morgan totally ignores this point. If you don't address this point, then you wind up with the emotional mess of a conversation and confusion that follows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHIQtxLCgrM
 
I thought that the US has changed some of your first ten Commandments ...Ammendments slightly already.

Forgive if I'm totally wrong
 
cullennz said:
I thought that the US has changed some of your first ten Commandments ...Ammendments slightly already.

Forgive if I'm totally wrong
Click to expand...

This is stupid.

Unlike biblical commandments, handed down by God, the Constitution is handed down by people who actually exist. One can either accept that the state's powers derive from the consent of the people being governed or not.

None of the US Bill of rights have been amended.
 
Cylinder said:
This is stupid.

Unlike biblical commandments, handed down by God, the Constitution is handed down by people who actually exist. One can either accept that the state's powers derive from the consent of the people being governed or not.

None of the US Bill of rights have been amended.
Click to expand...

The bible wasn't written by someone who existed?
 
cullennz said:
The bible wasn't written by someone who existed?
Click to expand...

Recursive stupidity.

The commandment's claim of authority is God. The constitution's claim of authority is the people. That's what handed down by is generally accepted to mean.
 
Cylinder said:
Recursive stupidity.

The commandment's claim of authority is God. The constitution's claim of authority is the people. That's what handed down by is generally accepted to mean.
Click to expand...

Apologies. They just seemed similar to me in the way they are worshiped and the fact they are both really really really old and were written in different times.
 
truethat said:
If you took the away the arrogant tone of voice in this post and the dumb pandering back to the slavery and Native Americans (since we are discussing Modern views) probably a lot what you are saying here could be relevant.

Non Americans don't really understand this. To others it looks insane. And to some Americans as well.

But as I have said repeatedly on this site "Understanding something is not the same thing as agreeing with it." If you want to change something, you have to understand it first and deal with the reality of it, not the way it's "supposed to be." The reality of it is this perception.

As to the bolded YES THEY DO. Not all Americans of course, but those who are fighting the hardest for gun rights. They bring it up ALL THE TIME and people just ignore it but it's the crux of their argument. Like I said before, look how Ben Shapiro makes this point with Piers Morgan. But Piers Morgan doesn't address it all. Then Ben Shapiro makes the entire rest of his argument from this basis.

Most people who debate this without understanding this treat the people who want guns as if they want guns to protect them from burglars or muggers or robbers etc. That's why they miss the entire point.

For example, if we banned assault weapons that means that the government could roll troops into a town with no assault weapons and the people would only have hand guns and rifles to protect themselves. So they'd easily be taken over. What did Ben Shapiro say about this? "That's why my family is now ASHES"

And as I pointed out, for people who hold this view, their reaction to the air port body scans, and the computer hacking theories, clearly shows that they feel the government is something we need to be protected from because it is always over stepping its bounds.

The biggest misconception I see about pro gun people is based on a misconception of Conservative Republican.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your courteous reply to my provocative post.
 
Darat said:
Concentrating on gun ownership controls will not solve the USA problem with injuries and deaths caused by privately owned guns. Whilst it is trivially true that less guns would mean less accidents etc that does not address the issue of why so many USA folk want to own guns. That is a cultural and societal issue. Guns in the USA are normalised, shooting people is portrayed in the media as being normal and usually exciting and so on. Until you address that issue the "gun problem" will not go away.

Many years ago I thought it was a matter of "gun control" but (from this board) learnt that is putting the cart before the horse. It is attitudes that have to change which can then be reinforced by stricter controls and so on.

And remember this is an immensely complicated issue. Any solution will also be immensely complicated.

I've used quotation marks for the like of gun problem in the above to indicate that for many people in the USA there is no actual problem that needs any kind of solution. And since that is a personal opinion there isn't an objective measure of what is right or wrong on any of 5he many sides of this debate.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly. I am of the same opinion as you, and for much the same reasons.

However, I don't believe that the gun-owning posters on this forum are necessarily representative of the gun-owning population of the US at large. I think it's likely that posters here have a more thoughtful and nuanced opinion than most American gun owners do.
 
Ranb said:
That was for the most part soldiers killing soldiers. Tell us how the US military is going to turn on the civilian population new or in the future.
Click to expand...

Let me see,

► Kent State, May 4, 1970 (National Guards shot and killed 4 student protesters)

► Executive Order 9066, Feb 1942 (the internment of ethnic Japanese American citizens.)

► Blair Mountain, September 1921 (the US Army and the West Virginia Police shot and killed 50-100 miners and their supporters)

► The Bonus Army Incident. July 1932 (the US army fired on a protest march by its own WWI veterans, killing 2 and wounding over 1000. IMO, this was the single most disgraceful use of American soldiers on own citizenry.

Then there is the Little Rock Nine 1954, where the US Army's 101st Airborne went up against the Arkansas NG, and the Rodney King Riots of 1992 that involved the California NG.

Do I need to continue?
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
Thank you for your courteous reply to my provocative post.
Click to expand...

Not a problem, I love provocative posts. I'd be interested in hearing more of your perspective.



cullennz said:
Apologies. They just seemed similar to me in the way they are worshiped and the fact they are both really really really old and were written in different times.
Click to expand...

They have not been Amended. They are Amendments.

And in some ways you aren't off base. I've heard someone say that the Bill of Rights is the next step in social order after the ten Commandments. (Their opinion not mine)

But Americans take them really seriously. That's why when you look at how to solve gun control issues you can't say this

"The Founding Fathers didn't know how technology could grow and how the 2nd Amendment could be twisted into something they didn't intend. So we need to just toss that out of the Bill of Rights"

without opening up

"Manipulation of the 4th Amendment has been used by criminals to circumvent a guilty conviction, simply because a cop slipped up and made a mistake. We should just do away with the 4th Amendment."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom