The truth about mass shootings in America

[Floydical]

Everyone's reaction to the shootings of the modern era is to call for stiffer regulations of guns. That's the politically correct position to have, at least. Some even go as far to call for more normal citizens to carry in order to thwart massacres mid-attempt. Truth is though, most Americans either don't want to carry or they might only have a weapon in their vehicle, not on their person which wouldn't help in a hostage situation.

In both cases, we can't logically rely on stiffer gun laws preventing bad people from getting guns, nor can we rely on people who are open or concealed carrying to fight back. Regarding bad people getting guns, they will still get them either way. Its comparable to modern day drugs or alcohol in the 20's, even if something is made ILLEGAL we will still find ways to get access, guns will not be different.

In addition, relying on our government to find the bad people before they commit crimes is not a logical expectation. In fact, it would be unconstitutional to hold people for the possibility of committing a crime, especially if they haven't done anything illegal to start with. That's the complication of balancing freedom with safety.

Truth is, there is very little we can do about all these shootings. By far, the most productive thing we can do as citizens is to keep an eye on those we interact with on a daily basis. The Orlando shooter had a history of bad temperament and anti-authority beliefs. Now there is no way to predict such atrocious acts, but if more people were communicating with him and helping him through hardship then perhaps he wouldn't have done what he did that day.

The only productive thing a person like the president can do in such a situation is to call for mental health awareness and to keep loving relationships with all those close to you. If a person becomes very distant and troubled, consider mental health options and convince them to get help. If things are looking real dire, consider institutionalization. No one wants to have to resort to this, but usually by the time the option reaches a last resort, it may already be too late. In my opinion, this would be the best way to handle the problem and its a preventative everyone in the country could be on the lookout for.

 

[Lightbringer]

Why not both? The guy behind the shooting had a record and was investigated by the FBI. Also his coworker has reported before that he constantly spoke about killing people. Yet nothing was done and the shooter managed to buy a gun LEGALLY.

Australia was able to ban guns and their crimes rates went down significantly. Even if a few are still able to get their hands on it; less guns=less violence. That is a statistically proven fact.

You must be registered for see links

 

[Floydical]

Why not both? The guy behind the shooting had a record and was investigated by the FBI. Also his coworker has reported before that he constantly spoke about killing people. Yet nothing was done and the shooter managed to buy a gun LEGALLY.

Australia was able to ban guns and their crimes rates went down significantly. Even if a few are still able to get their hands on it; less guns=less violence. That is a statistically proven fact.

You must be registered for see links

You can't take another country's experience with banning guns and just assume the same thing will happen in the United States. More importantly, I'm not talking about gun violence, I'm talking about mass shootings. These are very different cases and while banning guns will OBVIOUSLY reduce gun violence it will more than likely not reduce mass shootings in any significant way. If a man has gone berserk and wants a gun to commit a mass shooting, he will find it just like how people find illegal drugs in modern times or how people found alcohol in the 20's.

About the shooter, are you suggesting the FBI should have stepped in despite him never committing a crime? No they should not have because that would have been unconstitutional. Using my strategy, those who noticed the abnormal behavior and experienced his bad side should have taken the initiative to get him mental help or send him to an institution. We can't, and shouldn't, expect our government to have such dealings. Its part of being a citizen and protecting each other.

 

[ROHAN]

An interesting viewpoint. kun:

 

[Lightbringer]

You can't take another country's experience with banning guns and just assume the same thing will happen in the United States. More importantly, I'm not talking about gun violence, I'm talking about mass shootings. These are very different cases and while banning guns will OBVIOUSLY reduce gun violence it will more than likely not reduce mass shootings in any significant way. If a man has gone berserk and wants a gun to commit a mass shooting, he will find it just like how people find illegal drugs in modern times or how people found alcohol in the 20's.

About the shooter, are you suggesting the FBI should have stepped in despite him never committing a crime? No they should not have because that would have been unconstitutional. Using my strategy, those who noticed the abnormal behavior and experienced his bad side should have taken the initiative to get him mental help or send him to an institution. We can't, and shouldn't, expect our government to have such dealings. Its part of being a citizen and protecting each other.

Yes you can and yes it will if these people bought their guns legally, like the shooter of Orlando. 80% of guns used in mass shootings have been bought legally.

You must be registered for see links

Ok and lets again look at Australia and the UK. How easy is it to illegal guns? Not easy. Most illegal guns are sold by people who first bought their guns legally. If you make the laws stricter and make more thorough background checks, then you'd also have less illegal guns on the market.

The whole point of government is to protect its citizens. You do realize this right? That's literally a function of the government. The man was under investigation multiple times by the FBI.

I guess you missed the part when the shooter's co worker reported him saying multiple times that he was talking about killing people and nothing was done.

Your entire argument falls apart because if the FBI had stepped in then the shootings would have been avoided.

 

[Legendary Saiyan]

Truth is, there is very little we can do about all these shootings. By far, the most productive thing we can do as citizens is to keep an eye on those we interact with on a daily basis. The Orlando shooter had a history of bad temperament and anti-authority beliefs. Now there is no way to predict such atrocious acts, but if more people were communicating with him and helping him through hardship then perhaps he wouldn't have done what he did that day.

I agree with this paragraph. People have to help others before something like the recent incident happens again.

 

[Floydical]

Yes you can and yes it will if these people bought their guns legally, like the shooter of Orlando. 80% of guns used in mass shootings have been bought legally.

You must be registered for see links

Ok and lets again look at Australia and the UK. How easy is it to illegal guns? Not easy. Most illegal guns are sold by people who first bought their guns legally. If you make the laws stricter and make more thorough background checks, then you'd also have less illegal guns on the market.

The whole point of government is to protect its citizens. You do realize this right? That's literally a function of the government. The man was under investigation multiple times by the FBI.

I guess you missed the part when the shooter's co worker reported him saying multiple times that he was talking about killing people and nothing was done.

Your entire argument falls apart because if the FBI had stepped in then the shootings would have been avoided.

Again, regulating guns will reduce gun violence greatly. Common criminals who killed in a robbery likely wouldn't have committed that act if the gun was too hard to come by. This is obvious. However, I still think that mass shootings will happen no matter how hard guns are to get. They will always be the problem of mass shootings in America in modern society.

I still strongly disagree regarding the government's involvement. Just saying you're going to kill people is not enough. He was an American citizen who had done nothing illegal. If we imprisoned every citizen that met that requirement, we'd need 5 times as many jails as we do now. His race or allegiance can't play a card in that one. Bottom line? You're wrong about saying the government should have stepped in before he did what he did. The only way to have prevented it without over stepping constitutional grounds is if his family or friends had him get mental help before such an incident occurred.

 

[Lightbringer]

Again, regulating guns will reduce gun violence greatly. Common criminals who killed in a robbery likely wouldn't have committed that act if the gun was too hard to come by. This is obvious. However, I still think that mass shootings will happen no matter how hard guns are to get. They will always be the problem of mass shootings in America in modern society.

I still strongly disagree regarding the government's involvement. Just saying you're going to kill people is not enough. He was an American citizen who had done nothing illegal. If we imprisoned every citizen that met that requirement, we'd need 5 times as many jails as we do now. His race or allegiance can't play a card in that one. Bottom line? You're wrong about saying the government should have stepped in before he did what he did. The only way to have prevented it without over stepping constitutional grounds is if his family or friends had him get mental help before such an incident occurred.

Actually you're wrong on a few accounts.

1. Again, I already stated that most of the guns used in mass shootings were obtained legally.

2. Saying you're going to kill people is against the law. Verbal threats can send you to jail. There was a case of an LoL player who was angry at the game and jokingly said he was going to blow up a school bus or something along those lines and was arrested with a $100,000 bail. Even still, a guy who's saying he's going to kill people should never be allowed to buy a gun. That's literally what background checks are for. To make sure those sorts of individuals don't get their hands on guns.

3. So 50 people's lives are not worth having the FBI step in?


The part I'm confused about is that you've contradicted your own logic. You said what people should do is report those who are behaving abnormally and get them mental treatment. Well that's exactly what happened, except nothing was done in that case.

 

[Tarkatower]

we can employ ben carson tactics

 

[Floydical]

Actually you're wrong on a few accounts.

1. Again, I already stated that most of the guns used in mass shootings were obtained legally.

2. Saying you're going to kill people is against the law. Verbal threats can send you to jail. There was a case of an LoL player who was angry at the game and jokingly said he was going to blow up a school bus or something along those lines and was arrested with a $100,000 bail. Even still, a guy who's saying he's going to kill people should never be allowed to buy a gun. That's literally what background checks are for. To make sure those sorts of individuals don't get their hands on guns.

3. So 50 people's lives are not worth having the FBI step in?


The part I'm confused about is that you've contradicted your own logic. You said what people should do is report those who are behaving abnormally and get them mental treatment. Well that's exactly what happened, except nothing was done in that case.

Background checks won't reveal admissions of desiring to kill people, not unless the statement was on a social media or was reported and a criminal file was created over it. Most people wouldn't report something like that anyway, they'd likely just not take the person seriously. The point is what this man did before the shooting was not worth him being arrested and you shouldn't assume it was. Too many people would be wrongly held or imprisoned if that were the case.

Of course it would have been worth it to send him to jail to save those 50 lives, but I can't go back in time and change what happened now can I? The point is there is no way we could have predicted what he was going to do and since he had no criminal record, there was no true reason to arrest him. Your assertion is invalid because we are talking about hindsight here. You go ahead and attempt to arrest everyone that says they're going to kill someone. Your job will never end.

Those two things are not the same and no, I'm not contradicting myself. I'm not saying to report those people close to you, I'm saying we should be convincing troubled people to get help WILLINGLY. If they refuse and the situation gets worse, they should consider institutionalizing them against their will if they see fit. This does not necessarily involve police, only if things get really bad. The difference here is self-regulation. We shouldn't be relying on our government to institutionalize our mentally ill, we should be doing that ourselves by observing and identifying extreme trouble cases.

 

[Lightbringer]

Background checks won't reveal admissions of desiring to kill people, not unless the statement was on a social media or was reported and a criminal file was created over it. Most people wouldn't report something like that anyway, they'd likely just not take the person seriously. The point is what this man did before the shooting was not worth him being arrested and you shouldn't assume it was. Too many people would be wrongly held or imprisoned if that were the case.

Of course it would have been worth it to send him to jail to save those 50 lives, but I can't go back in time and change what happened now can I? The point is there is no way we could have predicted what he was going to do and since he had no criminal record, there was no true reason to arrest him. Your assertion is invalid because we are talking about hindsight here. You go ahead and attempt to arrest everyone that says they're going to kill someone. Your job will never end.

Those two things are not the same and no, I'm not contradicting myself. I'm not saying to report those people close to you, I'm saying we should be convincing troubled people to get help WILLINGLY. If they refuse and the situation gets worse, they should consider institutionalizing them against their will if they see fit. This does not necessarily involve police, only if things get really bad. The difference here is self-regulation. We shouldn't be relying on our government to institutionalize our mentally ill, we should be doing that ourselves by observing and identifying extreme trouble cases.

People who are insane don't get help willingly. Do you think Ted Bundy would have gotten help willingly if you had some tea time with him to discuss his murder sprees?

Uh, the whole point of a background check is to make sure guns are put in responsible hands, not people who shoot up clubs. What do you think is the purpose of a background check?

People who are on terrorist watch lists are not able to set foot on a plane, but are able to buy guns. What kind of logic is that?

I never said he should have been arrested, just not allowed to buy guns. Also again, threats of violence is a criminal act. If you say you're going to kill people in front of a police officer, you can get arrested.

Yeah, you might not be able to change the past, but you can learn from your mistakes. Such as having stricter background checks.


And lastly, I'm going to keep hammering this point because you seem to keep overlooking it. Over 80% of mass shootings were done with guns obtained through legal means.

 

[Floydical]

People who are insane don't get help willingly. Do you think Ted Bundy would have gotten help willingly if you had some tea time with him to discuss his murder sprees?

Uh, the whole point of a background check is to make sure guns are put in responsible hands, not people who shoot up clubs. What do you think is the purpose of a background check?

People who are on terrorist watch lists are not able to set foot on a plane, but are able to buy guns. What kind of logic is that?

I never said he should have been arrested, just not allowed to buy guns. Also again, threats of violence is a criminal act. If you say you're going to kill people in front of a police officer, you can get arrested.

Yeah, you might not be able to change the past, but you can learn from your mistakes. Such as having stricter background checks.


And lastly, I'm going to keep hammering this point because you seem to keep overlooking it. Over 80% of mass shootings were done with guns obtained through legal means.

But some people that would eventually commit suicide or mass murder would willingly get help at some point before going over the edge. Like I said, if it became abundantly clear there is a real problem, the family could force institutionalization.

My point was background checks won't tell you everything, especially if they have no record. From what I've read, the shooter wasn't officially affiliated with a terrorist group, he simply claimed an allegiance the day of the shooting. He was never a known terrorist, but he was looked at by the government and later deemed a non-threat, if I recall. Bottom line is he had no criminal history and he wasn't considered a dangerous terrorist.

About the threat of killing, again, if the statements weren't reported until now, then how would there have been a record of it up until now for the government to even see?

Its not that I'm overlooking it, just trying to grasp the idea. You're simply stating the background checks are too lenient. I agree but my point is that the background check shouldn't be the only means of stopping these people, friends and family should provide a filter as well. In addition, even if the mass shooters that committed these crimes failed to get a gun under stricter background checks, they'd still likely find a gun one way or another, through non-legal means.