WG's feelings on US Mass Shootings - What would you all like to see going forward?

[Pen Fifteen 10]

The situation at hand is quite sad, and I pray for those who have lost a loved one to gun violence in any country around the world. While we can always offer condolences to the people around us and love one another, we cannot stop acts of hatred for human life. It is very, very sad, and I urge any of you passionate about this to contact your elected officials and ask what they are trying to do to stop the massacres - and if they are unsure offer them educated, realistic suggestions on what you think they should do. Representatives of smaller districts actually do listen to their voters sometimes.

 

While I am personally of the belief that none of these measures polled would do absolutely anything to deter mass shootings, these are popular proposals in the usa to address the mass-shooting problem.

 

To foreigners unfamiliar with the true issue at hand - the US has an exceptionally high number of firearm deaths, but most of those are suicides or homicides with illegal weapons purchased on the black market. The small subset of us murders that are mass shootings are frequently - but not mostly - committed with legally-owned semi-automatic rifles (one shot per pull of the trigger) with standard-capacity (20-30 rounds) magazines.

 

The president released his plan at 10:00 am this morning to attempt to combat the mass shootings, and it includes policing the 4chans of the world, along with having tech companies gather data about potential extremists on their sites. It also includes a due-process hearing in which a report can lead to the temporary seizure of firearms - this appears to be different from laws currently on the books in some states where there is no due-process and the courts can just seize the guns without you having your day in court. The plan also includes a modernization of the process for involuntarily committing someone to a mental institution - exact details have yet to be released.

 

So, aside from the mental-health based measures and radicalization measures that will be used to combat terrorism going forward, do you guys feel there should be any additional firearm restrictions in place set by the federal government? In the poll are popular ones amongst the gun-control circles, however the ideas are not necessarily "popular" with the American people when you look at true, unbiased polls not taken from the NRA nor from the Everytown/Giffords factions. While background checks are "popular" the other two options do not always reach 50% popularity in polls.

 

So, what are your thoughts?

Edited August 5 by Pen Fifteen

[Just Scapin 58]

We can see for ourselves that the majority of mass shooting happening in America are committed using legally purchased guns. I feel quite strongly that the one and only way to actually decrease the risk of things like this happening is to stop the trade of guns. America is suffering because they are one of the few countries who allow carrying. These things happen so much less frequently around the world because people cannot get guns. Guns are dangerous no matter who holds them, and mass shootings in America aren't going to stop until they ban them like everywhere else. Obviously there's more to the issue and the argument, and its not that simple, but in an ideal world, it is what would have to be done to stop them. 

[Ghost Sabre 567]

Stay strapped and shoot back.

[WG Logout 94]

10 hours ago, Ghost Sabre said:

Stay strapped and shoot back.

Just like in the wildy, Ghost always has anti-pk gear when he goes outside ready to spec a kid out if they try to rush him

[Vio 303]

14 hours ago, Ghost Sabre said:

Stay strapped and shoot back.

 

[Mask 543]

BAN ALL GUNS!

 

Be a real man and use your fists, any fucking pussy can pull a trigger

[Donatello 80]

You guys aren't realizing that Walmart was a store you can legally carry a gun on you. Thats why he went there, this murderer knew what he was doing. I think that like liquor stores, Walmart should carry at least one gun. This goes for that bar the following night right after the Walmart shooting. Banning guns never works, I don't like guns in this country, but we have to remember the history of the U.S always had guns since the early years. Small businesses would go out of business and corporations trading the guns who have families would go out of business as well. Thats why nothing is being done about a ban on guns. This event should have been stopped sooner but I wasn't there to know the real circumstances, I know life happens and there is always going to be hate in the world. Walmart should have had at least one gun they could use to defend anyone who does shootings. I get no one was armed to fight back in the store even though they are allowed to carry a gun in that state, and that city legally, but lives do matter and if we could have prevented that huge of a number to have died in that store, we should be better prepared for another occasion like this. Better armed and more knowledgeable to stop these kind of hate crimes. 

Edited August 6 by Donatello

[VapeRSRepeat 11]

No, just no on gun bans. If anything more people should have guns so these psychotic attention seeking, satanist practicing and extremely mental unstable people should be shot on site as soon as they are seen with a drawn gun pointing at people.

 

Taking away guns is what the far left loonatics want, and as you can see here, the Dayton shooter had ties to Antifa, even the horrible CNN news network can't lie their way out of this one.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/us/connor-betts-dayton-shooting-profile/index.html

 

All these mass shootings are orchestrated by far left politicians to take away guns, because when Trump is out of office they will seek to initiate Martial Law, and turn all Americans into prisoners.

 

Look how the far left media spins every shooting as soon as it happens, using the misfortune and deaths of others to push their evil agendas.

 

I have shot many guns, many of my friends are legal gun owners, we have never shot a single person. Want to know why? Because we aren't psychotic and loaded up on Zoloft, Xanax, and don't have extreme mental instabilities.

 

The one good point, is to minimize the slayings of others, is to ban 50 round gun magazines. That is something I heavily agree on, nobody needs 50 round clips. Other than that, we need guns to protect ourselves from tyrannical governments....

 

In 99% of America, SANE individuals are not opening fire on crowds of people. And the 1% of these horribly mentally ill kids that think they are doing something for the greater good of their beliefs, should be shot on site if they pose a threat to anyone else.

[Just Scapin 58]

3 hours ago, VapeRSRepeat said:

No, just no on gun bans. If anything more people should have guns so these psychotic attention seeking, satanist practicing and extremely mental unstable people should be shot on site as soon as they are seen with a drawn gun pointing at people.

 

Taking away guns is what the far left loonatics want, and as you can see here, the Dayton shooter had ties to Antifa, even the horrible CNN news network can't lie their way out of this one.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/us/connor-betts-dayton-shooting-profile/index.html

 

All these mass shootings are orchestrated by far left politicians to take away guns, because when Trump is out of office they will seek to initiate Martial Law, and turn all Americans into prisoners.

 

Look how the far left media spins every shooting as soon as it happens, using the misfortune and deaths of others to push their evil agendas.

 

I have shot many guns, many of my friends are legal gun owners, we have never shot a single person. Want to know why? Because we aren't psychotic and loaded up on Zoloft, Xanax, and don't have extreme mental instabilities.

 

The one good point, is to minimize the slayings of others, is to ban 50 round gun magazines. That is something I heavily agree on, nobody needs 50 round clips. Other than that, we need guns to protect ourselves from tyrannical governments....

 

In 99% of America, SANE individuals are not opening fire on crowds of people. And the 1% of these horribly mentally ill kids that think they are doing something for the greater good of their beliefs, should be shot on site if they pose a threat to anyone else.

so its okay if someone can just kill a couple of people with his legally purchased gun, just as long as he cant open fire on 20 odd people. You might not be psychos, and most people aren't, but the fact of the matter is that when someone who is unstable feels like that, THEY CAN GET A FUCKING GUN and do whatever they want with it. Ban guns, no ones cares about hunters anymore, no one cares about gun enthusiasts who get a high off of owning guns.Those things are not worth the trade of thousands of lives. Fix up 

[Vio 303]

12 hours ago, Mask said:

BAN ALL GUNS!

 

Be a real man and use your fists, any fucking pussy can pull a trigger

 

u go ahead and use ur fists if u want but ima headshot some bwanas from 2km with my .50cal lmao

[Ghost Sabre 567]

1 hour ago, Just Scapin said:

so its okay if someone can just kill a couple of people with his legally purchased gun, just as long as he cant open fire on 20 odd people. You might not be psychos, and most people aren't, but the fact of the matter is that when someone who is unstable feels like that, THEY CAN GET A FUCKING GUN and do whatever they want with it. Ban guns, no ones cares about hunters anymore, no one cares about gun enthusiasts who get a high off of owning guns.Those things are not worth the trade of thousands of lives. Fix up 

You're UK right? You might not fully understand the reason we have the second amendment in the USA. In addition to the defense of our families and homes, we have the right to bear arms to resist and overthrow a tyrannical government if/when all other checks and balances fail. Nobody is hiding behind hunting or purely home defense against a single unarmed burglar. It is more of a deterrent at the current moment, but if the government becomes unstable the citizens have the capability to re-organize.

 

As far as home defense, the more wealthy you are, the bigger target you become for professional armed robberies. If you want to be naive and plan to call 911 that's your choice. I can't afford to wait if someone comes in my house trying to steal my wealth or hold my family hostage. This shit is real; it's not just in the movies. If you think I'm exaggerating, then open your mind and educate yourself by looking up real attacks on homes over the last 20 years. They don't usually get media coverage so it's more difficult to stay informed. Mass shootings get media coverage because the broadcasts are profitable.

 

Anyway, while this subject has been debated constantly for the past 30+ years, limitations on firearms can only go so far. First, there are millions of unregistered firearms that laws do not affect. Second, if the government attempts to mandate a ban on firearms, there will literally be a civil war. The citizens aren't going to turn in their weapons.

[TheSleptKing 104]

3 hours ago, Ghost Sabre said:

You're UK right? You might not fully understand the reason we have the second amendment in the USA. In addition to the defense of our families and homes, we have the right to bear arms to resist and overthrow a tyrannical government if/when all other checks and balances fail. Nobody is hiding behind hunting or purely home defense against a single unarmed burglar. It is more of a deterrent at the current moment, but if the government becomes unstable the citizens have the capability to re-organize.

 

As far as home defense, the more wealthy you are, the bigger target you become for professional armed robberies. If you want to be naive and plan to call 911 that's your choice. I can't afford to wait if someone comes in my house trying to steal my wealth or hold my family hostage. This shit is real; it's not just in the movies. If you think I'm exaggerating, then open your mind and educate yourself by looking up real attacks on homes over the last 20 years. They don't usually get media coverage so it's more difficult to stay informed. Mass shootings get media coverage because the broadcasts are profitable.

 

Anyway, while this subject has been debated constantly for the past 30+ years, limitations on firearms can only go so far. First, there are millions of unregistered firearms that laws do not affect. Second, if the government attempts to mandate a ban on firearms, there will literally be a civil war. The citizens aren't going to turn in their weapons.

When was that amendment made? In a time thats completely different to now, it was amended once and can/should be again. The argument of defending against the tyranny now is so outdated its not even relevant now. That fact of the matter is if the government or military want to take over in that kind of fashion your second amendment rights wouldn't help you fight back or even stand a sliver of a chance so resting on those laurels now is old. America is the only country to have this insane amount of mass public shootings and legal guns. It is NOT a coincidence and if you want to keep your gun so badly when this type of stuff is happening 100s of times a year in your country then nothing will change. Yes I'm from the UK but its genuinely sad seeing this so often in one country. Maybe getting rid of guns now wont help in the short term but think of future generations, they will sit around saying "remember when anyone could go and buy a gun at the supermarket? Hahah what were we thinking?" I hope.

 

Edi: There should be a ban guns option on the poll, dont leave it out because you dont agree

Edited August 7 by TheSleptKing

[VapeRSRepeat 11]

5 hours ago, Ghost Sabre said:

You're UK right? You might not fully understand the reason we have the second amendment in the USA. In addition to the defense of our families and homes, we have the right to bear arms to resist and overthrow a tyrannical government if/when all other checks and balances fail. Nobody is hiding behind hunting or purely home defense against a single unarmed burglar. It is more of a deterrent at the current moment, but if the government becomes unstable the citizens have the capability to re-organize.

 

As far as home defense, the more wealthy you are, the bigger target you become for professional armed robberies. If you want to be naive and plan to call 911 that's your choice. I can't afford to wait if someone comes in my house trying to steal my wealth or hold my family hostage. This shit is real; it's not just in the movies. If you think I'm exaggerating, then open your mind and educate yourself by looking up real attacks on homes over the last 20 years. They don't usually get media coverage so it's more difficult to stay informed. Mass shootings get media coverage because the broadcasts are profitable.

 

Anyway, while this subject has been debated constantly for the past 30+ years, limitations on firearms can only go so far. First, there are millions of unregistered firearms that laws do not affect. Second, if the government attempts to mandate a ban on firearms, there will literally be a civil war. The citizens aren't going to turn in their weapons.

 

I like you, a lot.

 

A topic that has not been touched on, is.... women. In Texas, women don't get raped or killed nearly as much. Women and all people, are able from a young age to get into target practice, hunting, and gaining a respect for guns. Women open  carry, and men know that they are not an easy target, and guess what.... They are safe and they protect themselves.

 

Also on your point about increased wealth in individuals, 100% true. Big time businessmen carry guns, have security guards that carry guns, and guess what.... these people don't just open fire on innocent people for no reason.

 

I'd go so far as to say that 99.9% of legal gun owners NEVER use their guns on another person. So to take away the safety and defense of 99.9% of people for .1 percent of crazy, and fucked up individuals is not fair.

 

In countries that don't have guns, when their shady governments go to enact Martial Law, they will all be rounded up and forced into "labor camps" when shit gets out of control. Here in America, if they ever plan on doing that, the millions of guns we have will be used against them, and it will be a bloody massacre... and they realize this... hence why their agenda is to take away guns.

 

Someone that is raised from a young age to have respect for guns, and the power they have in defense, aren't the ones that end up going on mass shootings. It is kids that have not had good parenting, lose their shit, and then decide to take down a bunch of people because of their mental instabilities. The ONLY way to counter, this extremely small percent of fucked up individuals, is to have guns to counter them.

 

It's crazy, because in the UK, Europe, etc, people's rights are being taken away left and right, and when the time comes, I am 100% sure a large amount of people wish they had the option to have guns to protect themselves....

 

 

[Pen Fifteen 10]

Fun debate here that the poll started. Some well thought out points - some education for our friends across the pond. @VapeRSRepeat makes a great point. Women are at such a disadvantage in any physical altercation with a larger man, and rape with a knife is not that uncommon an occurrence. If a woman had a firearm, she can resist any sort of attack with a knife.

 

The arbitrariness of these bans that they try to implement in the USA is an issue in that anyone with a brain knows banning "assault weapons" will do nothing to change the rate of deaths from these killings, but it will have a spillover effect into lawful self defense use. In my home state of NY, where one of the most strict assault weapon bans are in place, I can still own the exact same AR 15 that everyone else has,  except it looks absolutely stupid and has a 7 round limit. Will that limit stop anyone from mowing people down who are defenseless - no, because a reload takes 4 seconds. Will that limit stop me from defending myself? Yes because I can only hold 7 rounds, even in a handgun. In any home invasion scenario I can tell you the perpetrators are going to have gotten their guns from Georgia or Virginia, and they will have the 20 round handgun mags. Now I am outgunned in my own home, a dangerous scenario when there is more than one perpetrator in the home with 40 rounds in their combined handguns and I'm sitting here with 7, and I can assure you I don't have time to get on my holster with a spare mag.

 

@Ghost Sabre also does make a great point in that a deterrent to the US government moving towards too much control is the second amendment. There are countless high-ranking law enforcement officials who refuse to enforce gun laws, even in my home state of NY. The enforcement officials understand that the laws are perceived as tyrannical and people would quite literally fight off enforcement of overbearing laws. There would be nothing to stop bureaucrats from acting as tyrants before SCOTUS has a ruling on a law, because they can do damage without fear of harm. The original 2A interpretation did actually have a recent use - the Bundy Rebellion, renamed to the Sagebrush Rebellion. This is as recent as 2014 - https://www.hcn.org/issues/50.7/sagebrush-rebellion-celebrity-scofflaw. The fact that the ranchers had equal arms to the feds prevented them from tyrannically taking the cattle.

 

Edited August 7 by Pen Fifteen

[VapeRSRepeat 11]

12 minutes ago, Pen Fifteen said:

Fun debate here that the poll started. Some well thought out points - some education for our friends across the pond. @VapeRSRepeat makes a great point. Women are at such a disadvantage in any physical altercation with a larger man, and rape with a knife is not that uncommon an occurrence. If a woman had a firearm, she can resist any sort of attack with a knife.

 

The arbitrariness of these bans that they try to implement in the USA is an issue in that anyone with a brain knows banning "assault weapons" will do nothing to change the rate of deaths from these killings, but it will have a spillover effect into lawful self defense use. In my home state of NY, where one of the most strict assault weapon bans are in place, I can still own the exact same AR 15 that everyone else has,  except it looks absolutely stupid and has a 7 round limit. Will that limit stop anyone from mowing people down who are defenseless - no, because a reload takes 4 seconds. Will that limit stop me from defending myself? Yes because I can only hold 7 rounds, even in a handgun. In any home invasion scenario I can tell you the perpetrators are going to have gotten their guns from Georgia or Virginia, and they will have the 20 round handgun mags. Now I am outgunned in my own home, a dangerous scenario when there is more than one perpetrator in the home with 40 rounds in their combined handguns and I'm sitting here with 7, and I can assure you I don't have time to get on my holster with a spare mag.

 

Well said, I live in New Jersey. Gun laws here or trash. I'm considering moving to Nevada or Arizona, or Possibly Texas in the next couple of years, I'm over this area, lived here most my life, and the politicians are fucking morons coming to guns rights.

 

Unfortunately in America, with all these media manufactured mass shootings... it seems it will only get worse, especially in Blue States....

[TheSleptKing 104]

36 minutes ago, VapeRSRepeat said:

Well said, I live in New Jersey. Gun laws here or trash. I'm considering moving to Nevada or Arizona, or Possibly Texas in the next couple of years, I'm over this area, lived here most my life, and the politicians are fucking morons coming to guns rights.

 

Unfortunately in America, with all these media manufactured mass shootings... it seems it will only get worse, especially in Blue States....

Let me guess you're a big conspiracy theory guy? You make alot of bold, un true statements with no evidence especially with the media manufactured stuff. We will have to leave it there before I change my mind about you lul

Edited August 7 by TheSleptKing

[VapeRSRepeat 11]

2 minutes ago, TheSleptKing said:

Let me guess you're a big conspiracy theory guy? You make alot of bold, un true statements with no evidence especially with the media manufactured stuff

 

The media has been lieing to and deceiving not only American's but the whole world since the 1950s. Look into operation Paperclip. It is not conspiracy, it is 100% fact.

4 minutes ago, TheSleptKing said:

Let me guess you're a big conspiracy theory guy? You make alot of bold, un true statements with no evidence especially with the media manufactured stuff

 

With all due respect, I don't think labeling others as conspiracy theorists, because they share different views than yours, is a viable or proper argument nowadays.

[TheSleptKing 104]

2 minutes ago, VapeRSRepeat said:

 

The media has been lieing to and deceiving not only American's but the whole world since the 1950s. Look into operation Paperclip. It is not conspiracy, it is 100% fact.

 

With all due respect, I don't think labeling others as conspiracy theorists, because they share different views than yours, is a viable or proper argument nowadays.

 

I'm not wrong though am I?

[VapeRSRepeat 11]

4 minutes ago, TheSleptKing said:

 

I'm not wrong though am I?

 

Regardless, the point is not valid, when it is fact that the media and government has used horrific acts of violence to push agendas.

 

Anyone that questions the government is labeled a conspiracy theorist, that is how they protect their shady and evil practices, and turn society against each other.

 

Edit: If I confirm that I am a conspiracy theorist, you and many others will use that to dismiss my sentiments, therefor I will not answer that question. Because I don't feel like those that question the government are automatically wrong. That is my answer.

Edited August 7 by VapeRSRepeat

[TheSleptKing 104]

Just now, VapeRSRepeat said:

 

Regardless, the point is not valid, when it is fact that the media and government has used horrific acts of violence to push agendas.

 

Anyone that questions the government is labeled a conspiracy theorist, that is how they protect their shady and evil practices, and turn society against each other.

 

I rest my case, and I did make my points above 

[VapeRSRepeat 11]

3 minutes ago, TheSleptKing said:

 

I rest my case, and I did make my points above 

 

You can feel you "rested your case" I will continue to question the evil government, and evil media alike, and you can chose to believe them, I won't throw labels your way to discredit you, because I learned better than to do that.

If you want to watch a good video, of an analysis of a very intellectually gifted man, that speaks truth. Watch this, I doubt you will, but if you actually listen with an open mind, then you may or may not think differently on certain subjects. Again, I doubt you will watch it, as most who are set in their ways are not willing to think outside of their box...

 

 

[TheSleptKing 104]

Lmfao, you think I'm closed minded because I called you a conspiracy theorist and was right. Saying you won't throw a label then instantly call me close minded and that I probably wont change. Ironic. Obviously this topic gets you worked up. Dont believe every random guy in the internet, just because people sound clued up doesnt mean they are. Last time I reply here.

Edited August 7 by TheSleptKing

[VapeRSRepeat 11]

5 minutes ago, TheSleptKing said:

Lmfao, you think I'm closed minded because I called you a conspiracy theorist and was right. You're a hypocrite though, saying you won't throw a label then instantly call me close minded and that I probably wont change. Funny. Dont believe every random guy in the internet, just because people sound clued up doesnt mean they are. Last time I reply here.

 

Not once, in this thread, or anywhere else, Have I ever called you close minded..... This is what I'm talking about, you labeled me a conspiracy theorist, and now are claiming I said things I didn't say... lol... this is why I don't even often debate these topics with people.

 

And JUST like I stated, you won't even watch the video and give it a chance.... 

Edited August 7 by VapeRSRepeat

[TheSleptKing 104]

Fuck it. You very clearly implied I was set in my ways and not willing to change my views, that's calling me close minded. You can pretend otherwise, and I did watch it i just dont agree with it and said I'd leave it there. Atleast make true assumptions like I do mate.

[Donatello 80]

Although this is an open platform to discuss ideas and opinions, I do think its very important to know we are not each others enemies. Treat each other with respect, everyone yes is entitled to their own opinions of course, but if you dont have anything nice to say dont say it at all. Peace