You forgot to talk about all the different meds people take now days the can make people more violent. Most (I say most because I haven't heard of a single case this wasn't true but I may be wrong) of the shooters in the last 15 or so years have been on drugs like SSRIs which have been proven to make people more violent. It even says it can right on the label of the bottle.

I'm well aware of the effects drugs like anti-depressants have on society. I didn't mention it as it's not something that can be said with absolutely certainty. Most people put on those meds are mentally unstable to begin with. SSRI's do not help however, there's no doubt about that but I think it's a long stretch to say they can cause so many people to kill. They can cause to kill however, that is a fact. Like I said though, most people on SSRI's have serious problems to begin with and it could easily be their mental state rather than the drugs.

I'd like to add I know SSRI's first hand and I do believe they are absolute bullshit. I used to be "severely depressed" and took them for a few months. They made me feel terrible and I stopped taking them, I also had thoughts of killing myself from them. A year later I became free of depression and am now at absolute peace with myself. I achieved that through deep inner thought and a restructuring of my thought process; something a doctor would never recommend as a pill is supposedly more effective than your mind. My experience with SSRI's is mainly why I can't say for sure that all those shooters killed because of their mental health and not the pills. Those SSRI's seriously fuck up your head...

[deleted]

I think you misunderstood my post. I'm not against guns at all. I completely agree with you. I'm just saying that meds can push people over the edge to do some bad. If someone wanted to they could go to a local store and buy everyday items and make a bomb. Im just pointing out another part of the problem.

[deleted]

Your wording in the first few sentences made me think that you were discrediting my post and implying that I was a gun grabber.

I prefer dangerous liberty to safe slavery.

This is also how early founders of the USA felt. Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty, or give me death" embodies the sentiment. It is amazing how many liberties people are willing to give up for safety. The new American sentiment is, "Take my liberty, but please protect me."

Agreed, and well said.

[deleted]

Appreciate the input. I'd also appreciate if you upvoted as I really want to see this gain some exposure here rather than the usual run of the mill, non-important and poorly explained conspiracy submissions that are rampart here.

I can kill more people than anyone with a rifle, using common household chemicals as poisons or a 5 gallon gas can in an office building.

So banning guns will not stop "Mass Murder."

[deleted]

It's not an issue of the Government telling me what I may do. I'm saying that they have no right to do either. It is our basic human right to bear arms in order to defend ourselves.

I don't submit to anything that I feel violates my God given rights. When I see a Government taking those rights I speak out. I am not mentally a slave, although physically we all are and will continue to be until we decide to take our freedom back.

I'd like to add that submitting to laws do not make you a slave. Laws are not a bad thing, they are wonderful for maintaining a civil and even free society. Laws are currently being exploited however by those in power for their own gain of power. If they were not exploited you could maintain them while keeping independent liberty.

Assault Rifles are already near impossible to purchase.

I believe you are bias in your initial argument.

If you know our government you know they don't draw a line when it comes to taking our rights.

You hold the opinion the Government is out to take your rights away for reasons unexplained.

does not prevent homicides and certainly not mass murders.

No banning guns does not prevent homicides or murders. However banning high capacity assault rifles can prevent ‘mass-murders’.

they truly didn't intend for all weapons to be kept by the public they would've stated so.

Such as aircraft carriers? Tanks? Reaper Drones? I think it is rather silly to say all weapons should be available for purchase by anybody and although they were smart gentlemen I do not believe they could have anticipated the advancements in technology. Nuclear Bombs? Satellite weapons? There are already massive restrictions on the right to ‘bear arms’ so why is there such a problem with one further restriction?

I also find the idea of ‘government tyranny’ to be rather outdated. How would it benefit the Government to be tyrannical? Why would they want to be? Also lets face it even with assault rifles a citizens uprising is not going to stand much chance against Apache Helicopters and Stealth Bombers etc. Yes, asymmetrical warfare or whatever but it is not effective against an army or government that is accepting of civilian and military losses, which a supposed tyranny would surely be.

Personally I believe in the right to bear arms, my father owns several shotguns and I am in no way against weapons per se. However, I believe new restrictions on assault style weapons is a reasonable measure that is not tyrannical in anyway when we can see that there are already massive restrictions on what weapons civilians are allowed.

I actually believe greater background checks are definitely the way to go. Have a felony on your record? No gun. Have mental problems and could be a danger to others? No gun. We already restrict the rights of criminals (e.g. no voting in prison) and the mentally disabled (some can’t drive or have responsibility for personal finance etc) so I do not see how restrictions on gun sales is any worse than what we are doing already.

I am the fence about all this though. I believe when you serve you time in prison you are once again a free man with all the rights that entails, so to restrict sales to ex-cons is an issue I am not sure I can get behind.

I disagree with restricting gun sales to certain groups of people. In the USA felons, people with drug addictions, mental illness, non-felony domestic violence charges, failure to pay child support, etc. can technically all be restricted.

The problem is that felons or drug addicts, for example, may actually be the groups actually need guns the most for personal protection. If guns are truly for personal protection as the arguments go (rather than just for sport or hunting) then I don't see with what basis the government should be able to say, "You no longer have a right to defend and protect yourself."

In my country people do not typically own guns. They simply aren't floating around out there and easy to access like in the USA (legal or illegal). But if they did I would be more comfortable with everyone owning one than just a select portion of the population.

Yep because of a marijuana charge as a teenager I no longer have constitutional rights. Most people don't see it from that angle. Then all that has to be done is to collapse the economy and make more laws to where in very desperate times a large percentage of the citizens gets into legal trouble, allowing government to strip them of inalienable rights.

[deleted]

No probably not but they couldn't have cut as many throats.

[deleted]

I very much respect your opinion thank you for your detailed and thought out response.

Your ideas aren't saving lives, they're creating a monopoly of force in a group of very flawed, very aggressive, very mentally malleable groups of trained killers. That is what you consider a peaceful move forward in the evolution of society.

I can agree with this however I do not believe it is a peaceful move to have every body armed to the teeth either, would we not just end up with: a group of very flawed, very aggressive, very mentally malleable groups of untrained killers, let's also not forget the armed forces police etc are made up of citizens just like you and I.

I agree with a lot of what you say I just do not believe more guns = less violence, and the only answer gun supporters seem to have to this is issue is to increase the amount of guns.

Until we can evolve past killing each other like savages out of cold blood, man will need to be able to defend himself from those who would kill him or his family. My personal protection is not on the list of things you have the power or the ability to decide for me. (this is debatable, but not until we add context)

You do not understand the concept of 'inalienable'. To be inalienable means that if everyone on the planet, minus myself, thinks I shouldn't have that right, it doesn't matter. I retain that right still. You have an inalienable right to not consume poison without your consent, to poison you against your will is aggression and a violation of your sovereignty as a human being. Before your brain goes there, inalienable rights do not protect the imposition of will or coercion on another person. So no, I do not have the right to rape anyone by virtue of claiming that right for myself. However, if we destroy the idea of inalienable, who's to say what rights you will able to claim for yourself, you will have to claim whatever rights the 51% agree to let you have. A person has a god given (inalienable) right to be free from aggression by another person, unless somewhere along the line, we compromise those rights for the 'social contract'. The collectivist ideal of subjugating the individual for the good of the group is the most insidious weapon used against us today. It takes the form of democracy I'm sad to say. In a democratic society, a simple 51% majority can rule the other 49%, and every four - eight years those sides trade out ruling over each other until we get to where we are today. 51% is a far cry from the 100% - 1 standard for a right to be inalienable. This is where we get into collectivism and why democracy is such a popular idea, one that we spread with our bombs and bullets. It's popular among the leadership because through propaganda and narrative issuance, and false flags, a minority can be swayed into a simple little majority with very few people changing positions, and thus soften the resistance to a particular agenda.

You have rights like this too, and if you revoke the idea of inalienable for me, you do so for yourself. Today is my safely locked away weapon, what will it be next? When do you think we will reach the point that we actually solve the murder problem? When the weapons are gone? The weapons aren't going away, there are going to be death instruments whether you like it or not. Whether it be in the hands of trained or untrained persons just determines the efficiency level at which they kill, not whether or not they do. Do you trust the law officers to equally and judiciously apply any law like that? What do you think will change between the civilian and police force when we no longer have the ability to shoot back? Do you think those people are somehow different when they don the uniform as they are when they're out of it? Are more guns the answer? Not really but is that a valid reason to call for the relinquishment of them? No, it isn't enough reason to revoke the idea of inalienable rights given by the creator. But that doesn't mean that fewer guns is the solution either. The answer would then only be total disarmament, or equal armament. Total disarmament worldwide that is.

Enlightenment as a species or immortality, which is going to come first? Neither are close, so please, allow me to do for myself as I see fit today, and I will oblige you the same tomorrow.

I'm talking gun control not drone, tank and aircraft carriers. Please do not put words into my mouth. Also, I think it's wise to remember what I say comes from my opinions and from what I've looked into a read. So what may seem vague to you isn't necessarily what I believe; it depends on how you perceive it. I'd like to add everybody is biased, even you.

Banning Assault Rifles will not prevent mass murders. Sandy hook wasn't even carried out with an assault rifle which is a widely believed misconception. The assault rifle was found in the trunk of a car. I thinks it ridiculous to claim banning assault rifles prevents any mass murders as those same murders can easily be accomplished with any gun.

The Government is becoming increasingly controlling and history show that when governments abuse power conditions for the people become worse. Governments have a history of continuously abusing their powers until their citizens can't take it any longer and it leads to their downfall, or at the very least civil unrest. I don't see how you can believe that a Government doesn't benefit from abusing their power, becoming increasingly tyrannical.

By banning any gun you are infringing on the second Amendment; that is something which should never occur; especially when the ban is ineffective.

While you believe background checks are the way to go I don't. As has been said before, criminals don't follow laws. You cannot background check an illegal transaction. I believe the solution is in the reform of our values, society and culture. I've already stated why.

I hope I don't offend.

There was no assault rifle in the trunk, there was however a semi-automatic AR-15. So there wasn't even an assault rifle on the scene.

Even better, thanks for sharing.

I am not putting words into your mouth. You stated:

Our founding fathers were not stupid or primitive. I'm sure they knew technology would develop and times would change. They made sure that all citizens had the right to bear arms and they truly didn't intend for all weapons to be kept by the public they would've stated so.

We are talking about the unalienable ‘right to bear arms’, but you do not define what actual ‘arms’ are or what ‘weapons’ are. Neither did the founders. You even state you believe they wanted all weapons to be available to be kept by the public, so I ask you does that include drones tanks etc? As you state, it is the person not the weapon that kills so why would it be different or matter. I also do this to point out there are already restrictions on what we can and cannot own in terms of weapons, usually defined by it’s amount of killing power.

I would have to argue that you can kill many more in a mass-murder with an assault style weapon than a single shot musket, this is obvious, it is also apparent that the skill and intent of the murderer also factors into this.

I don't see how you can believe that a Government doesn't benefit from abusing their power, becoming increasingly tyrannical.

No, what I am saying is how does a Government quantitatively benefit from being tyrannical?

What is the reason they desire to hold tyranny over the people? What is the end game? When, as you have already stated tyranny leads to revolution, why would a government (they are not idiots) put themselves in that situation?

Indeed, guns are the symptoms, society is what is ill.

How does the government benefit from tyranny? Easy, they get more money. More money means those with a shit ton of money get even more money. I mean its all about power and money. They benefit because they get more rich and more power. Lets say were two kids on the block, ill be america, you be the ppl, now were just two kids on the block and im like hey fuck you, this is my block, give me money or ill lock you in he basemnt. And your like ok because you dont want to deal with that. Well I just made $20 from you for being a bully so I go around and do it to all our neighbor friends, like 20 of them. I just made an ass load of cash because I claimed you were on my territory, oh and I used your money to buy my new tonka electric mini tractor, then I go and flash it to all the little kids and im like fuck ya! I just benefited from fucking all my neighbors in the ass.

Ok, I can get behind the argument they simply want more power.

"A boot stamping on the human face forever"

However I take issue with the money argument. First you need to spell out exactly how being tyrannical gets them more money? Literally how does it lead to an increase in revenue for the Government?

IMO a free population of capitalist consumers generates much higher revenues than say any other Tyrannical Government or country. Look at North Korea, or other similar tyrannies. The free market in itself allows corporations to act tynrannically, corner the market make massive profits, Halliburton etc, they would not be making these profits from a population with a controlled income and no spending power.

Your example doesn't work in the long term cause one you have spent the kids $20 and he has no money left they're both as bad of as one another.

Well for arguments sake well say we both got a weekly allowance. But either way the government overstepping their boundaries and becoming tyranical benefits those already in power. They can sway the government with huge sums of cash to vote against what the people want. Laws like marijuana prohibition just help to suppress the people and squeeze them for all the money. I think thats pretty tyranical. I mean the u.s. government holds a few patents for a cure for cancer and they havent released it to tbe ppl, I think thats pretty tyrannical. Gays cant get married, thats pretty fucking tyranical. I mean the benefit is that the people know better than to stand up to the government because of how much power they have so they are never questioned about there authority

First, thanks for your well thought out post and you bring up some points worth discussion. I think if you look at a comparison between us and other comparable nations you will see a drastic difference in our gun homicide numbers. The major factor in this difference, in my opinion, has to do with availability. The reason that most gun regulation hasn't worked in the U.S. is that none of the laws have really effected availability in any way.

I'm talking gun control not drone, tank and aircraft carriers.

Even though it may sound crazy for the public to run around with drone's, tanks, and aircraft carriers the poster does make a point. I mean some think it's pretty crazy to have semi-automatic AR-15's. I mean define "arms" for me. There is no definition that says what kind of weapons are acceptable and which ones aren't. If you look at it from what most people call the framers intent then we should have access to every kind of weapon the military has. Of course there is also the portion about the "well regulated militia" but that is another conversation. The question is who makes the decision about what are acceptable. The public, politicians, courts?? I think there is a pretty big faction of the public who are more afraid of you and I running around with AR-15's than they are of a government takeover. I think their concerns have merit and are worth discussion.

Banning Assault Rifles will not prevent mass murders. Sandy hook wasn't even carried out with an assault rifle which is a widely believed misconception. The assault rifle was found in the trunk of a car.

Yeah I've heard this multiple times especially over at Facebook. I mean it is fitting that this is posted on the conspiracy page because that is all this statement is. Look if the NRA and Fox news haven't said anything about this it probably isn't credible. Can you cite any credible sources for this info?

As far as government control goes I don't think they need to rule by force because they already have us right where they want us. I mean for the most part they use propaganda and other non-violent means here at home and force abroad. We talk about freedom but we really don't have that many choices politically do we? We really have two factions of one party, the business party. I mean if you look at actual decisions about wealth and power they are all made behind closed doors. They let us argue about some trivial moral issues and that's about it. If we really wanted to do something to keep government honest don't worry about the AR-15, support a third party.

As has been said before, criminals don't follow laws. You cannot background check an illegal transaction.

This is why even Bill O'Reilly supports a registry. Like I said earlier limiting availability is what seems to work if you want to lower gun violence. It is the reason the UK, Aus, Japan, and others gun crime is so low. The trick is you limit availability for everyone. The U.S. doesn't want to do this and some say can't do this because of the 2nd amendment. Okay so what is the alternative, well, we say we want to limit the availability to a select population within the greater population. This is obviously very difficult to do especially when you can't track who has certain guns at what time and what they are doing with them.

At this point it may be impossible to limit availability of guns. The reason is because there are so many guns in private ownership right now, both legal and illegal. In the EU we have few gun crimes because there are few guns. It has been this way from the very beginning - there was never a European gun culture like the USA has. In the USA it is a different story. Even if all gun stores shut down overnight there would be millions of guns in the country. 270 million guns, to be specific.

The Americans have a legitimate point when they say only criminals would have guns. Once in circulation the guns do not leave. This is the effect that is seen in countries that ban guns, like Jamaica and Mexico, yet have high rates of gun crime. Many shootings involve old guns in circulation that entered the countries 50 years ago.

You are right that politically and realistically at this point in the U.S. this seems like an impossibility. However I do think it is important to know that this lies at the root of the problem. When the gun enthusiast come out and say "these laws won't work", they are correct. They aren't saying why they won't work they just don't want anyone messing with their guns. They aren't saying go big or go home they are just saying go home.