Parkland FL HS shooting, shooter arrested, 17 dead

[NotThePrez]

But Australia managed it? Why is the US so incapable?

I'll take a stab at answering this.

Ignoring the cultural aspect of firearms in the US for sec, you have to consider what would go into such endeavor. Australia is unique in that all 6 states were able to agree upon their own version of gun control legislature that included giving up firearms. Getting all 50 states to do that is a whole 'nother endeavor. That also, as far as I can tell, comes into conflict with the 2nd Amendment, but we'll ignore that for a sec.

So, firearms are now banned, and people will have to turn in their guns. While I'd like to believe that there would be a large amount of law-abiding citizens who would willing give up their weapons, you still have to find a way to enforce these regulations, which would more than likely involve police presence. Having armed police come around and enforce laws that require citizens to give up their firearms doesn't really make people comfortable, especially considering the current relationship that the American public have with police. So now the relationship between citizens and the government is further degraded. Economics have to be considered too, as the US has a bustling gun-building industry, and you risk the livelihoods of individuals who buy & sell weapons, many of which are for sport/leisure.

Also, there's the situation of accounting for the weapons in the first place. It's estimated that there are over 300 million firearms in the US. (I'm having a very hard time finding consistent ownership stats in Australia both currently and before 1996). Accounting for all of those weapons in the space that the US occupies requires a significant amount of spending on departments, resources and other materials needed to get the job done right. There would have to be departments for those who want to file for exceptions, such as farmers, law enforcement, security, and probably a few other professions I can't think up. Population has to considered as well; the United States houses ~309 million individuals as of 2010, vs ~22.5 Million in Australia of the same year. Both those factors mean that there are more guns per capita, which require further resources for the gun round-up to be effective.

And after all that, there still wouldn't be any way of guaranteeing that these measures would curb violence or crime in general by a significant margin, if at all. Police response times are also something that get called into question quite often, with some responders taking anywhere from minutes to hours to respond to a emergency call. That's a lot of time for an intruder to cause some damage, steal, or even end one's life. As I mentioned earlier (and gave examples of), those who are willing to commit violent acts can easily find ways around a lack of firearms. @DDastardly00 also pointed out the fact that there were concerned citizens who contacted the police & FBI about the high schooler, and basically nothing was really done about it, which is also a very bad look, and something that REALLY needs to be looked into.

The short version is this: A ban on firearms in America, while not impossible, is very, very, VERY unrealistic. It would be a logistical and resource-intesive nightmare that in no way would guarantee a significant enough reduction in crime. For it to actually be effective would be a long, drawn-out and expensive process. Now, something needs to be done about it, but straight-up banning guns, or making guns very difficult doesn't accomplish anything. There needs to be a middle ground, things like mandatory and enforced weapon training if you wish to buy a firearm, as well as re-evaluation current laws, instead of creating new laws for feel-good points that basically do nothing, or are sweeping.

Please note, I'm not an expert in this kind of stuff, this is more an educated guess.

 

[Mr Tree]

Quit believing everything CNN says. There have not been 18 school shootings similar to the one carried out a couple of days ago. If you bothered to actually read the thread, that argument was broken down by someone who listed at least half of these “shootings.”

Ok the actual number can be wrong. I went by belgian newssources and hadn't checked the original source. Also did you really think I was under the assumption that these are exactly the same. It's rather obvious this shooting was a larger and worse event. Then again I read on this forum (correct me if I'm wrong) 3 deadly shootings (I actually knew those 18 weren't all deadly but it doesn't help your argument in my opinion). If 3 deadly shootings still is acceptable to you I believe your mental health should be in question. (This is not meant offensive I'm someone who sees a therapist because of some mental health issues)

Also you take offense due to the (wrong) number but the main idea I wanted to get out was that we DON'T have these shootings and even if you have 1 wouldn't it be time to start searching how we manage to keep these events from happening and why america does have these events on a semi regular basis? I find this strange coming from the country in which a lot of it's inhabitors claim it's the best country in the world.

But you didn't adress that at all.


@NotThePrez I see why those are reason making it very hard but in the end it comes down to unwillingness to change the current awefull situation.

 

[EamerRed]

That's a slightly different question. Massacres are subset of deaths, and I don't really consider them any worse than having those deaths spread out by time and distance. It's horrible to experience a loss no matter how many other people were involved. You also have to consider what the underlying issue(s) with the US is. If it's guns, then removing the guns would solve the problem. If it's people's willingness to kill, then removing the guns isn't going to solve the problem, although removing guns could change the statistics in a number of ways.

I guess the point you're making is that more gun control could have prevented a specific event from happening or protected a certain group. That's true but I don't think that's how the issue should be approached. Looking at events in isolation doesn't necessarily point to the best solution in general.

Actually, the point I'm making is that if they were using a different weapon, IF we assume that they were going to happen anyway, that nowhere near as many people will have been killed. Surely you don't dispute that?

 

[TetsuKobura]

Ok the actual number can be wrong. I went by belgian newssources and hadn't checked the original source. Also did you really think I was under the assumption that these are exactly the same. It's rather obvious this shooting was a larger and worse event. Then again I read on this forum (correct me if I'm wrong) 3 deadly shootings (I actually knew those 18 weren't all deadly but it doesn't help your argument in my opinion). If 3 deadly shootings still is acceptable to you I believe your mental health should be in question. (This is not meant offensive I'm someone who sees a therapist because of some mental health issues)

Also you take offense due to the (wrong) number but the main idea I wanted to get out was that we DON'T have these shootings and even if you have 1 wouldn't it be time to start searching how we manage to keep these events from happening and why america does have these events on a semi regular basis? I find this strange coming from the country in which a lot of it's inhabitors claim it's the best country in the world.

But you didn't adress that at all.

I've actually addressed it multiple times in the thread on previous pages. There were already laws IN PLACE that are SUPPOSED to PROHIBIT the purchasing of firearms for the individual in question. The problem is that this law was NEVER ENFORCED, and as a result over a dozen people are dead. This is exactly like the Sutherland Springs incident, albeit a different law scenario, but nevertheless, boils down to the un-enforcing of laws already put in place.

Obviously I'm sick of these shootings because it gives more leverage to these hardcore anti-gun people that I came in contact with a lot of the time throughout my life. I have a serious problem with anyone that doesn't keep their guns either locked up in a safe, or away from children's reach, but I also have a problem with parents that never discipline their kids, because giving them too much freedom allows this bs to happen. I was raised by parents who would discipline me thoroughly for doing anything as little as lying, and I was also taught how to use guns by my father. It turned me into a responsible person with enough respect for guns to not use them the wrong way.

 

[Danoff]

However, let me pose this to you pro-gun guys. There have been an absolute ton of school massacres with guns in use in recent years - I'm not even going to look it up to find the exact number because I think we can all accept that these have occurred. Do you accept that if gun control was in place, the number of schoolchildren that had died would have been significantly reduced?

What gun control are we talking about? Background checks, stronger provisions (and actual enforcement of them) for keeping them out of the hands of kids, especially kids with a known history of mental illness? Or are we talking about bans...

Dear oh dear... Australia literally proved that banning guns brings down gun crime. It freaking happened in front of our eyes! You can argue that it increases crime of other types all you like, but you cannot argue that gun control works for bringing down gun crime. Those countries with gun control have far less gun crime, end of.

In order to demonstrate that you'd have to show crime decreasing in Australia after a gun ban at a faster rate than other similar nations had crime decrease without a gun ban over the same time period. It's almost an impossible feat. Good luck!

Are you telling me that if gun control was in place, and the criminals had to work extremely hard and pay thousands to get guns on the black market, you still think 28 would have died in Sandy Hook?! If so then that tells me all I need to know.

I don't know how you propose to make it that hard for criminals to get guns. Keep in mind that we share a border with Mexico, by all accounts one of the most dangerous places on Earth right now. One reporter who had been stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan was quoted as saying that Mexico is the scariest place he has ever been. We share a border with Mexico that consists of a highway and some dirt. I'm not saying we should build a wall, but we need to be realistic about how much of a police state we can install here in the US.

But Australia managed it? Why is the US so incapable?

Managed what exactly. You need facts to back this up.

And therein lies the problem. Your nation is so much more than the ability to carry a lump of metal on you ffs. "I should relinquish my rights for the better good of society?" - YES. That's the point. Every other country is fine with it but apparently Americans are too precious about it. It's just utterly bizarre.

I've already demonstrated to you (using your own chart) why it is that there is a deeper issue in the US than guns. But yes, ultimately, at the end of all of it, human rights trump utilitarian calculus.

How many school massacres have there been in other western countries with gun control? With or without guns? Still less.

I'm sorry, this is not a problem that is insolvable purely because you have a border. Europe has borders, with nations with guns in as well. Try again.

It's not a problem that's solvable by banning guns either. It's a problem of violence.

Actually, the point I'm making is that if they were using a different weapon, IF we assume that they were going to happen anyway, that nowhere near as many people will have been killed. Surely you don't dispute that?

I would. The most successful mass killing perpetrated by a civilian in recent US history was carried out by a truck with some fertilizer.

 

[EamerRed]

What gun control are we talking about? Background checks, stronger provisions for keeping the out of the hands of kids, especially kids with a known history of mental illness? Or are we talking about bans...

An outright ban. I'm taking onboard your point but if there was a gun ban i.e. in Europe, Sandy Hook would have had less victims. That's a fair point I feel.

In order to demonstrate that you'd have to show crime decreasing in Australia after a gun ban at a faster rate than other similar nations had crime decrease without a gun ban over the same time period. It's almost an impossible feat. Good luck!

I was considering your point when I made this one, re-read it. I was specifically relating to gun crime - gun crime clearly goes down when guns are banned, which statistically is clearly true. I said " You can argue that it increases crime of other types all you like" to reference the fact that you made a good point showing it doesn't necessarily lower crime as a whole.

I don't know how you propose to make it that hard for criminals to get guns. Keep in mind that we share a border with Mexico, by all accounts one of the most dangerous places on Earth right now. One reporter who had been stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan was quoted as saying that Mexico is the scariest place he has ever been. We share a border with Mexico that consists of a highway and some dirt. I'm not saying we should build a wall, but we need to be realistic about how much of a police state we can install here in the US.

Really? . It's pretty hard for our criminals to get guns. And Europe has dangerous and corrupt borders too...

 

[Exorcet]

Actually, the point I'm making is that if they were using a different weapon, IF we assume that they were going to happen anyway, that nowhere near as many people will have been killed. Surely you don't dispute that?

Again it's hard to be certain. When I went to school, the students were often gathered in the street or school yard before and after class hours. The streets were closed off with signs during the day but they wouldn't stop a vehicle that was trying to drive through them.

I guess you could say that a vehicular attack would take more planning, so reduced gun access could reduce deaths in spur of the moment attacks. In a planned attack, a killer could come up with many ways to inflict harm without firearms.

 

[TetsuKobura]

An outright ban.

Is banning outright really your only argument? Again, because I don't think you've read it enough, criminals will still find ways to get guns even if they're banned. All you do is hinder civilians.

 

[EamerRed]

Again it's hard to be certain. When I went to school, the students were often gathered in the street or school yard before and after class hours. The streets were closed off with signs during the day but they wouldn't stop a vehicle that was trying to drive through them.

I guess you could say that a vehicular attack would take more planning, so reduced gun access could reduce deaths in spur of the moment attacks. In a planned attack, a killer could come up with many ways to inflict harm without firearms.

I'm going to have to give up soon I swear, I'm honest enough to concede when I need to re-evaluate my point, but you guys seem to concede nothing. This one is bordering on insanity. Yes, you could use a vehicle. If there was a complete gun ban, would there be more vehicle massacres, killing the amounts of the like seen at Sandy Hook? Of course bloody not.

 

[EamerRed]

Is banning outright really your only argument? Again, because I don't think you've read it enough, criminals will still find ways to get guns even if they're banned. All you do is hinder civilians.

Where's the facepalm emoji? You realise we have criminals too?

 

[Obelisk]

Is banning outright really your only argument? Again, because I don't think you've read it enough, criminals will still find ways to get guns even if they're banned. All you do is hinder civilians.

You can go try and take guns and ammo from 300 million people. Good luck with that.

 

[Danoff]

An outright ban. I'm taking onboard your point but if there was a gun ban i.e. in Europe, Sandy Hook would have had less victims. That's a fair point I feel.

No I don't think an outright ban would necessarily bring down the number of victims. Someone who is willing to spend time amassing weapons, practicing, and killing their fellow students is also willing to drive a truck through a playground and plant explosives. They're also willing to go to lengths to obtain illegal weapons. Explosives are so potent that I think the body count might actually go up. Keep in mind that Sandy Hook was carried out by an ADULT. The Colorado Aurora theater shooting was carried out by someone who had planned other attacks involving stabbings and explosives as well. An explosive in a theater could easily have killed more. Easily.

Boston Marathon, Oklahoma city... we do blow people up here in the states. In Australia they run people over in shopping malls or burn buildings down.

I was considering your point when I made this one, re-read it. I was specifically relating to gun crime - gun crime clearly goes down when guns are banned, which statistically is clearly true.

Which matters because? You'd rather be stabbed than shot? Blown up than shot? Why does this matter to you? Violence is what matters, the specific weapon used is almost immaterial. Although, if I'm picking, I'd rather be shot than run over or stabbed (to death).

Really? . It's pretty hard for our criminals to get guns. And Europe has dangerous and corrupt borders too...

Mexico is, by many accounts, one of the absolute worst places on Earth. I think probably there are some African nations that Europe doesn't border that might be worse. How can you not accept that our border with Mexico is worse than any European border (from a police enforcement perspective)?

 

[Rage Racer]

I thought they won't blame Russia at least here. I was wrong.

Spoiler

https://www.wired.com/story/pro-gun-russian-bots-flood-twitter-after-parkland-shooting/

 

[Danoff]

I thought they won't blame Russia at least here. I was wrong.

Spoiler

https://www.wired.com/story/pro-gun-russian-bots-flood-twitter-after-parkland-shooting/

well, they have a photo of the bots right there. Proof!

 

[EamerRed]

You can go try and take guns and ammo from 300 million people. Good luck with that.

Such a shame how it's worked fine for 700 odd million people, but there is one area of 300 million people that for some reason is completely different. That one border with Mexico means the problem is insolvable - it's just a scratch on the surface compared to the relative ease of near-bordering Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria (and being very close to Libya, Tunisia and Israel)! It's clearly wrong to not let mentally ill people purchase guns (because the US is clearly the only country which has 'proper' freedom), and there is clearly no causal link between the higher rates of violent crime and the ease of access to weapons, it must be pure coincidence! The NRA fund the government to actively NOT investigate gun crime - but that isn't because they have anything to hide. Oh no! It must be some other reason. What a peculiar section of land which is seemingly so different to everywhere else.

Fact is, child massacres do not happen here, to anywhere near the level that you guys have it. There is a problem, and you refuse to acknowledge it for some blind loyalty to a strip of metal attached to you. It's utterly bizarre. This is my final word on the topic. I'm sorry for being a bit of a sarcastic d*ck there, but it's so mindbogglingly obvious to us lot it is ridiculous. But as we can conclude, the rest of the world must have it wrong.

 

[NotThePrez]

@NotThePrez I see why those are reason making it very hard but in the end it comes down to unwillingness to change the current awefull situation.

I don't disagree, by my point was that a blanket ban will not achieve the results people think it would.

 

[Foofer37]

An outright ban. I'm taking onboard your point but if there was a gun ban i.e. in Europe, Sandy Hook would have had less victims. That's a fair point I feel.



I was considering your point when I made this one, re-read it. I was specifically relating to gun crime - gun crime clearly goes down when guns are banned, which statistically is clearly true. I said " You can argue that it increases crime of other types all you like" to reference the fact that you made a good point showing it doesn't necessarily lower crime as a whole.



Really? . It's pretty hard for our criminals to get guns. And Europe has dangerous and corrupt borders too...

Yep, guns are banned, which is why people now kill people en masse by running them over with cars and trucks. Should we ban them also?

 

[TexRex]

I think it would be more difficult to disable all/many guns at a specific location that it would be to enable one gun only at a specific location. The former has to deal with guns and security systems of various types and would probably require some cooperation or standardization between manufacturers. It also wouldn't do anything for older guns with no safety. A gun that comes with it's own "leash" just needs to have that one gun talk with its security system, so I'd think it would be simpler. Also the gun owner in this situation can just get rid off the less secure guns.

While I don't necessarily reject your particular premise, I definitely reject and despise the underlying assertion that difficulty in a venture makes it a nonstarter. Nothing happens yet again and something happens...yet again.

Really though, a system mandated by the government, which it would likely have to be if it's to have a meaningful impact, could be mandated to be universal...and that right there fixes one problem immediately. Frankly, this would work just fine for the single-location example. It could even be a given from the start; "You're applying for a permit to protect yourself in your own home? Great! Here's an application that, if accepted, entitles you only to a firearm with an electronic tether."

Make it harder to obtain guns that can kill anybody at any time, or whose possessor is ambiguous because any attempt to keep track of where that gun is goes down the drain once it leaves the rack or display case in a store that sells then, and instances of unlawful use go down immediately, without keeping those who should have the right to possess a firearm from doing exactly that.

 

[Dotini]

the rest of the world must have it wrong.

There is something positive you can do - please deposit 25¢ in the slot below in order to support my basement project of a time machine to take the world back to the year 1218.

 

[Danoff]

Such a shame how it's worked fine for 700 odd million people, but there is one area of 300 million people that for some reason is completely different.

Define "worked". How exactly? What exactly did it what do for 700 odd million people?

there is clearly no causal link between the higher rates of violent crime and the ease of access to weapons, it must be pure coincidence!

Are you arguing the people in the US are murdered WITHOUT guns because it's easy to buy guns here? Good luck backing that one up!

Fact is, child massacres do not happen here, to anywhere near the level that you guys have it.

It has already been demonstrated to you thoroughly why you can't just say "guns" and throw up your hands on this one. First of all, laws were in place and not enforced, second of all, there are alternatives to guns, third of all, we have a more violent population. Your knee-jerk "ban guns" supposed solution to this problem has many problems.

There is a problem, and you refuse to acknowledge it for some blind loyalty to a strip of metal attached to you. It's utterly bizarre. This is my final word on the topic. I'm sorry for being a bit of a sarcastic d*ck there, but it's so mindbogglingly obvious to us lot it is ridiculous. But as we can conclude, the rest of the world must have it wrong.

I do not doubt that with much effort we could curtail "gun crime". That should not be the aim. We cannot wipe our hands of a problem of violence by re-categorizing the violence. I'm not willing to accept that as a solution the way the rest of the world does.

 

[Foofer37]

Such a shame how it's worked fine for 700 odd million people, but there is one area of 300 million people that for some reason is completely different. That one border with Mexico means the problem is insolvable - it's just a scratch on the surface compared to the relative ease of near-bordering Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria (and being very close to Libya, Tunisia and Israel)! It's clearly wrong to not let mentally ill people purchase guns (because the US is clearly the only country which has 'proper' freedom), and there is clearly no causal link between the higher rates of violent crime and the ease of access to weapons, it must be pure coincidence! The NRA fund the government to actively NOT investigate gun crime - but that isn't because they have anything to hide. Oh no! It must be some other reason. What a peculiar section of land which is seemingly so different to everywhere else.

Fact is, child massacres do not happen here, to anywhere near the level that you guys have it. There is a problem, and you refuse to acknowledge it for some blind loyalty to a strip of metal attached to you. It's utterly bizarre. This is my final word on the topic. I'm sorry for being a bit of a sarcastic d*ck there, but it's so mindbogglingly obvious to us lot it is ridiculous. But as we can conclude, the rest of the world must have it wrong.

Hmm, sorry you don't understand the simple equation: When someone comes in guns blazing, either our churches or homes, we reserve the right to be able to fight back. Not just sit there unable to protect ourselves and our families. If a couple of large criminals break into my house and I'm not home what is my wife supposed to do? Call the police? It's too late. Sorry that you feel comfortable being completely helpless, no way to defend yourself or your family, which is YOUR responsibility by the way, no one else's. We reserve the right to defend ourselves. The rest of the world simply does not get this because they don't want to. You've been taught it's not your right and that you're safer this way. The problem is that you believe that. If someone broke into your house and hurt or killed one in your family in front of you, you will wish you had a way to stop them. This is what guns are for. Get it? Just because there are sick people who kill innocent people does not mean I now have to be defenseless and unable to protect my family.

 

[Danoff]

Hmm, sorry you don't understand the simple equation: When someone comes in guns blazing, either our churches or homes, we reserve the right to be able to fight back. Not just sit there unable to protect ourselves and our families. If a couple of large criminals break into my house and I'm not home what is my wife supposed to do? Call the police? It's too late. Sorry that you feel comfortable being completely helpless, no way to defend yourself or your family, which is YOUR responsibility by the way, no one else's. We reserve the right to defend ourselves. The rest of the world simply does not get this because they don't want to. You've been taught it's not your right and that you're safer this way. The problem is that you believe that. If someone broke into your house and hurt or killed one in your family in front of you, you will wish you had a way to stop them. This is what guns are for. Get it? Just because there are sick people who kill innocent people does not mean I now have to be defenseless and unable to protect my family.

I agree with the sentiment here. The way I usually put it is this - how does taking my guns away from me, which are harming no one, help anyone?

 

[Northstar]

and there is clearly no causal link between the higher rates of violent crime and the ease of access to weapons, it must be pure coincidence!

As has been said countless times, we have an overall violence problem. Removing guns may make a tiny dent in things, but we would still have a gigantic problem, because...

The guy who takes things to far and finally beats his wife to death will do it without guns.
People will still kill each other over drug deals gone bad (yes, they used guns, but it's obvious people were going to die regardless)
Gangs will still kill each other over turf, probably still using guns even though they are "banned"
Intruders will still kill innocent people to get what they want
Rapists will still kill their victims.

I'm all for trying to get guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. But I pay attention enough to know it really won't accomplish much in the grand scheme of things.

It's clearly wrong to not let mentally ill people purchase guns

Where have you seen that in this thread?

 

[Sanji Himura]

Right. So it must be that the entire world's media are spreading false propaganda to tarnish the reputation of the United States, and in doing so, all of the US statistical sources are going along with that narrative? Come on. Whatever the definition, whatever the interpretation, violent crime is higher in the USA. That's even accepted by the pro-gun lot in here.

You didn't really answer the question that I posted earlier in the thread. Define what is a massacre, please.

Another laughable excuse. Yes that's why the law was initially designed, but what use are guns against a tyrannical Government? A hell of a lot of use they will be against tanks, bombs and drones .

There are some valid pro-gun arguments but these are not those.

But like it or not, that is the truth. Our founders just did come out of a war afterall.

However, let me pose this to you pro-gun guys. There have been an absolute ton of school massacres with guns in use in recent years - I'm not even going to look it up to find the exact number because I think we can all accept that these have occurred. Do you accept that if gun control was in place, the number of schoolchildren that had died would have been significantly reduced?

Gun control is already in place though. It is already illegal to modify a semi-auto into a fully automatic weapon for example. For another one, it is already illegal to carry weapons into a school zone. Those are two laws that this idiot violated in this shooting alone.

And therein lies the problem. Your nation is so much more than the ability to carry a lump of metal on you ffs. "I should relinquish my rights for the better good of society?" - YES. That's the point. Every other country is fine with it but apparently Americans are too precious about it. It's just utterly bizarre.

For the record, I abhor guns, but that doesn't mean that I won't defend someone else's right to carry one.

How many school massacres have there been in other western countries with gun control? With or without guns? Still less.

As pointed out earlier in the thread, Brazil still has a higher violence per capita than the US and they are in the process of disarmament. And for the record, school shootings that take place elsewhere are being under-reported to keep up this narrative.

Isn't the main issue actually guns leaving the US and heading into Mexico rather than the other way around (not that the wall would stop that either)?

Yes, and you can thank Eric Holder for that.

Actually, the point I'm making is that if they were using a different weapon, IF we assume that they were going to happen anyway, that nowhere near as many people will have been killed. Surely you don't dispute that?

I dispute that because schools are weapons free zone. As I have stressed earlier in the thread, a good guy with a weapon can stop most situations relatively easily and faster than the police.

An outright ban. I'm taking onboard your point but if there was a gun ban i.e. in Europe, Sandy Hook would have had less victims. That's a fair point I feel.

But an outright ban would empower more criminals to commit these acts of violence. San Bernardino shooting would have children as victims if the shooters actually made it to the school to shoot up the place. So I guess the overall point is that Sandy Hook would have fewer victims, fair enough, but there would have been more incidents.

I was considering your point when I made this one, re-read it. I was specifically relating to gun crime - gun crime clearly goes down when guns are banned, which statistically is clearly true. I said " You can argue that it increases crime of other types all you like" to reference the fact that you made a good point showing it doesn't necessarily lower crime as a whole.

Source required. Crime, in general, is trending low, and that includes the USA. Besides, earlier in the thread someone pointed out that Brazil has more deaths per capita than the US, and they are in the process of disarmament.

 

[MatskiMonk]

You've been taught it's not your right and that you're safer this way. The problem is that you believe that

I don't remember ever being taught that. I do remember thinking, for most of my life, "I should probably take reasonable precautions to preserve my own safety", and I have to say - I've never felt the need to own a firearm to do that, probably because the likelihood of needing one is statistically insignificant compared to other dangers in everyday life.

 

[Dotini]

It's starting to emerge the Parkland killer was on psychiatric drugs, like so many other youths involved in mass shootings.

 

[Foofer37]

I don't remember ever being taught that. I do remember thinking, for most of my life, "I should probably take reasonable precautions to preserve my own safety", and I have to say - I've never felt the need to own a firearm to do that, probably because the likelihood of needing one is statistically insignificant compared to other dangers in everyday life.

You're being taught it, but somehow you just don't realize it.

 

[DDastardly00]

It's starting to emerge the Parkland killer was on psychiatric drugs, like so many other youths involved in mass shootings.

And the Police were dispatched to his residence 36 times. So many red flags....

 

[TetsuKobura]

When are people gonna do their 🤬 job when it comes to these things? What could’ve been prevented by just doing that...

 

[MatskiMonk]

You're being taught it, but somehow you just don't realize it.

What, that I should take reasonable precautions to ensure my own safety? Huh, I thought I came to that conclusion on my own - oh well, not a bad thing to be taught I guess.