A Response to the CA Shootings and Cries for "Gun Control"

[ᴰᵉᶜᵏ Henry]

For those who might not be aware for whatever reason, there was recently another shooting in America, this time in Santa Barbra, California.  Of course, this has ignorant liberals crying for more "gun control" to "prevent future shootings." However, if they took the time to actually look at the facts of this situation, they would realize that the suspect, mentally disturbed Elliot Rodger, actually stabbed (with a knife) just as many victims as he shot, killing 6 people in total.  Witnesses are also reporting that he even used his CAR as a weapon during this violent spree, running over people as he traveled. So this begs the question that I and other gun-rights activists ask the left and never get any sensible response.  Why do you liberals continue to blame guns themselves for these tragedies?  Why arn't you trying to blame knives and cars in this situation, when guns only contributed to half of the deaths? Do you REALLY think that "gun control" would prevent these situations? I sure hope you don't.

 

Feel free to discuss. I would love to start a dialogue. 

[sanny]

our country is so damn fucked in the head. how does gun control prevent something like this? how about idiot control and not allowing people like this to obtain weapons. it's not hard to a.) not sell weapons or b.) buy a safe 

 

also, the whole mental illness thing is bullshit. people are always attempting to blame something instead of just taking responsibility.

[ᴰᵉᶜᵏ Henry]

our country is so damn fucked in the head. how does gun control prevent something like this? how about idiot control and not allowing people like this to obtain weapons. it's not hard to a.) not sell weapons or b.) buy a safe 

I completely agree.  Obviously, mentally disturbed people who are currently seeing two psychiatrists like the suspect in this case should not be able to purchase weapons. That is about as far as "gun control" should go, though. Even then, it doesn't prevent shootings like this! Look at Sandy Hook shooting.  The mentally disturbed suspect took his mothers guns from her house and used them. The bottom line is, if someone wants to get their hands on a gun, they are going to get it. 

[Grimes]

For those who might not be aware for whatever reason, there was recently another shooting in America, this time in Santa Barbra, California.  Of course, this has ignorant liberals crying for more "gun control" to "prevent future shootings." However, if they took the time to actually look at the facts of this situation, they would realize that the suspect, mentally disturbed Elliot Rodger, actually stabbed (with a knife) just as many victims as he shot, killing 6 people in total.  Witnesses are also reporting that he even used his CAR as a weapon during this violent spree, running over people as he traveled. So this begs the question that I and other gun-rights activists ask the left and never get any sensible response.  Why do you liberals continue to blame guns themselves for these tragedies?  Why arn't you trying to blame knives and cars in this situation, when guns only contributed to half of the deaths? Do you REALLY think that "gun control" would prevent these situations? I sure hope you don't.

 

Feel free to discuss. I would love to start a dialogue. 

 

I'm not trying to detract from the knife thing, but the way I see it; Its far easier to kill people with guns then it is knives. 

[Kevin the Chicken God]

I completely agree.  Obviously, mentally disturbed people who are currently seeing two psychiatrists like the suspect in this case should not be able to purchase weapons. That is about as far as "gun control" should go, though. Even then, it doesn't prevent shootings like this! Look at Sandy Hook shooting.  The mentally disturbed suspect took his mothers guns from her house and used them. The bottom line is, if someone wants to get their hands on a gun, they are going to get it. 

his mom wouldnt have had the gun in the first place tho

there is no reason for anyone to own a fully automatic weapon, even less so if it is accessible by a mentally disturbed individual

Im fine with people carrying pistols around, but automatic weapons are unecessary

[ᴰᵉᶜᵏ Henry]

his mom wouldnt have had the gun in the first place tho

there is no reason for anyone to own a fully automatic weapon, even less so if it is accessible by a mentally disturbed individual

Im fine with people carrying pistols around, but automatic weapons are unecessary

^Another example of a stupid, ignorant liberal.  All three firearms used in this shooting were handguns.  All weapons used in Sandy Hook were semi-automatic rifles and handguns.  It is extremely illegal for an American citizen to own a fully-automatic weapon without basically being law enforcement. 

[ᴰᵉᶜᵏ Henry]

I'm not trying to detract from the knife thing, but the way I see it; Its far easier to kill people with guns then it is knives. 

...

 

So basically what you are saying is that you want criminals to have to put a little more elbow grease and effort into their killings?

 

Death is death, my friend.  

[Pistolvania]

^Another example of a stupid, ignorant liberal.  All three firearms used in this shooting were handguns.  All weapons used in Sandy Hook were semi-automatic rifles and handguns.  It is extremely illegal for an American citizen to own a fully-automatic weapon without basically being law enforcement. 

What exactly do you put into being a "liberal"? As far as I know, USA is a self-proclaimed liberal country, whereas this goes purely for economic liberty in modern USA. On the other hand, I am as liberal as it gets, but I am far from right-wing American liberal.

[Estabanyo]

^Another example of a stupid, ignorant liberal.  All three firearms used in this shooting were handguns.  All weapons used in Sandy Hook were semi-automatic rifles and handguns.  It is extremely illegal for an American citizen to own a fully-automatic weapon without basically being law enforcement. 

It actually isn't. Full-Auto weapons like the AR-15 can be owned by citizen with a correct license. 

[ᴰᵉᶜᵏ Henry]

It actually isn't. Full-Auto weapons like the AR-15 can be owned by citizen with a correct license. 

Ok, first of all, the majority of AR-15s that are owned by Americans are semi-automatic. I own one. I know.

Secondly, referring to the full-auto version of the AR-15, I said "without basically being law enforcement." The "correct license" is extremely hard to get and you must go through and pass extensive training, very similar to what law enforcement goes through.

[whitem0d]

Happy to stay in a country that doesnt require the individual to posses a gun to defend themsleves....

[ᴰᵉᶜᵏ Henry]

What exactly do you put into being a "liberal"? As far as I know, USA is a self-proclaimed liberal country, whereas this goes purely for economic liberty in modern USA. On the other hand, I am as liberal as it gets, but I am far from right-wing American liberal.

In American politics, liberals are 99% of the time anti-gun while conservatives are 100% pro-gun rights.  

[ᴰᵉᶜᵏ Henry]

Happy to stay in a country that doesnt require the individual to posses a gun to defend themsleves....

Oh really? Hows it like living in a box on Mars?

 

I would LOVE to hear which country you live in that you think this applies to. It must be nice having a 0% crime rate.

 

Edit: Singapore. lol.

[Vegan T-Rex]

Very happy that there isn't one "lol its the girl's fault, fucking sluts" comment yet. 

[Vegan T-Rex]

Oh really? Hows it like living in a box on Mars?

 

I would LOVE to hear which country you live in that you think this applies to.

(psst) Hong Kong

[Kevin the Chicken God]

^Another example of a stupid, ignorant liberal.  All three firearms used in this shooting were handguns.  All weapons used in Sandy Hook were semi-automatic rifles and handguns.  It is extremely illegal for an American citizen to own a fully-automatic weapon without basically being law enforcement. 

I read up on the article and never saw that he only used handguns

you're going to point out that guns are good self-defense against shootings as well, but look at the Fort Hood shooting. He used a handgun to kill 3 and injure 16 soldiers (some of which were armed)

3/4 guns used in mass shootings in the past two decades have been obtained legally, most of them were mentally troubled, and of those mentally troubled the majority showed signs before they massacred (the guy in the CA shooting posted a YouTube video saying he was going to do it)

of the 143 weapons used in mass-shootings, 48 would be banned by the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

we cant stop all of the shootings, but stopping any is better than none

dont call me ignorant, I actually know what Im talking about

[FluttershysYAAY]

guns r bed mmkey

 

On a serious note, keeping guns around people who have had mental issues should be illegal.

[Grimes]

...

 

So basically what you are saying is that you want criminals to have to put a little more elbow grease and effort into their killings?

 

Death is death, my friend.  

 

No im saying its alot easier to mow down 20 people with a gun than it is with a knife. 

[Piotr Nieroda]

For those who might not be aware for whatever reason, there was recently another shooting in America, this time in Santa Barbra, California.  Of course, this has ignorant liberals crying for more "gun control" to "prevent future shootings." However, if they took the time to actually look at the facts of this situation, they would realize that the suspect, mentally disturbed Elliot Rodger, actually stabbed (with a knife) just as many victims as he shot, killing 6 people in total.  Witnesses are also reporting that he even used his CAR as a weapon during this violent spree, running over people as he traveled. So this begs the question that I and other gun-rights activists ask the left and never get any sensible response.  Why do you liberals continue to blame guns themselves for these tragedies?  Why arn't you trying to blame knives and cars in this situation, when guns only contributed to half of the deaths? Do you REALLY think that "gun control" would prevent these situations? I sure hope you don't.

 

Feel free to discuss. I would love to start a dialogue. 

 

 

"However, if they took the time to actually look at the facts of this situation, they would realize that the suspect, mentally disturbed Elliot Rodger, actually stabbed (with a knife) just as many victims as he shot, killing 6 people in total.  Witnesses are also reporting that he even used his CAR as a weapon during this violent spree, running over people as he traveled. So this begs the question that I and other gun-rights activists ask the left and never get any sensible response.  Why do you liberals continue to blame guns themselves for these tragedies?  "

 

Answer: You cant stop somebody with a gun, but you can with stop someone with a knife

 

Jesus christ, your calling us ignorant?

[Piotr Nieroda]

No point arguing with you anyways, not like anyone will change their mind, especially you. 

 

 

"

• "LocationNorth Carolina, 'Murica" -redneck status

[KERPKEK]

Guy kills 35 people in Australia in 1996, Australian Government imposes gun control laws, no major shootings have happened since. 700,000 australians still legally own firearms. I don't know what's so difficult about this, but there's no reason to have multiple semi-automatic weapons lying around in your house at any time. And before you ask, I know a few people who own firearms & they're great folks.

[Curly Brace]

I don't know what's so difficult about this, but there's no reason to have multiple semi-automatic weapons lying around in your house at any time. And before you ask, I know a few people who own firearms & they're great folks.

 

And right there you disproved yourself.  You've shown that it's not what is used to harm others, but instead the person behind it.  The purpose behind having weaponry is to defend yourself from those who are attacking you.  Making laws to prevent bad things from happening doesn't do shit because the people doing it don't care about the laws in the first place.  There will always be the illegal trade of firearms that aren't registered, and the best way to counter this is to make sure each individual that is suited to own a firearm is able to defend themselves and others.

[Kevin the Chicken God]

And right there you disproved yourself.  You've shown that it's not what is used to harm others, but instead the person behind it.  The purpose behind having weaponry is to defend yourself from those who are attacking you.  Making laws to prevent bad things from happening doesn't do shit because the people doing it don't care about the laws in the first place.  There will always be the illegal trade of firearms that aren't registered, and the best way to counter this is to make sure each individual that is suited to own a firearm is able to defend themselves and others.

I believe he's saying that you should be able to legally own guns, but should not be allowed to own an excess of guns (?)

[ᴰᵉᶜᵏ Henry]

And right there you disproved yourself.  You've shown that it's not what is used to harm others, but instead the person behind it.  The purpose behind having weaponry is to defend yourself from those who are attacking you.  Making laws to prevent bad things from happening doesn't do shit because the people doing it don't care about the laws in the first place.  There will always be the illegal trade of firearms that aren't registered, and the best way to counter this is to make sure each individual that is suited to own a firearm is able to defend themselves and others.

I honestly could not have said this better myself.

[AsaltoTemplario]

It's already been proven that guns don't give security to citizens. It's also been proven that countries where guns are legal have more gun deaths. So what? Guns don't give you freedom/security/anything, instead they make THOUSANDS of people die each year. It's not hard to go and compare statistics, but the number of people killed by guns for each 100k people is twenty times higher in the U.S than spain, or ten times higher than Italy. For most european countries (where even pistols are illegal unless you have a license) the deaths are much, muuuuuch less compared to the U.S

 

Can knives kill? Yes. Can pistols kill? Yes. What's the difference? Guns aren't needed, knives are (guns are needed for hunting, true, but few people in the U.S use them for that compared to the majority). The second amendment is now useless and should be suppressed to save lives.