why is this always the question? seriously?

no gun law advocate has reduction in an absolute sense as their goal, that's idiotic. its like asking "what medicine can i take that will prevent me from ever getting sick again" or even more realistically "i know a person who got hte flu shot that still got sick, i'm not getting one".

gun control is about the reduction of negative outcomes, not the absolute prevention of them. Gun laws also have a cumulative effect over time.

keep in mind, im a partial owner of a gun store, i do NOT support most gun law proposals, etc. I just don't understand why this question continually gets posed, its poor argumentation.

Your point is a stupid one. Of course there's a myriad of laws we could've passed years ago to prevent these mass shootings. Assault weapons ban, gun registry, gun confiscation, etc.

If the argument is that "people can find ways around any laws", then that would also apply to the proposals put forth by Trump supporters after the terrorist attack in New York City. The guy could've just saved some money, gotten to Mexico, and crossed the border.

This post was edited by IceMage on Nov 9 2017 12:20pm

People can find ways around gun laws, but not around walls. - Average Trumpet, probably.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Nov 9 2017 12:22pm

it's funny how the "criminals will always find a way / don't obey laws" narrative is only true when it comes to guns. why are you in favour of thorough vetting (something i would have liked to see in germany as well before we took in millions of refugees btw) then? oh right, it's about decreasing the odds - unfortunately that logic eludes you when it comes to your precious guns...

well, guess when it comes to mass shootings it's just that americans are inherently more criminal than the rest of the civilised world... really nothing can be done sadly...

This post was edited by fender on Nov 9 2017 12:28pm

That is not my point, lol. The start of this conversation was a picture that tried to mock conservative pro-gun people for their alleged double-standards: apathy towards the shootings in las vegas and texas, alarmism because of the new york truck attack.

My point with respect to this picture is that those particular incidients in las vegas and texas could not have been prevented with stricter gun laws, but that the new york attack would have been prevent by stricter immigration laws.



by the way: a guy from uzbekistan could not just "save some money, go to mexico and cross the border". it would take him years to save the money, and even then he'd have a hard time getting onto any transatlantic flight without a visa.

and of course the texas shooting doesnt fall under the "stricter gun laws would have helped" paradigma either. the guy should have been blacklisted under current law, but was not. when laws are not applied due to a communication failure between public bodies, making those laws stricter obviously doesnt change anything.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 9 2017 12:31pm

Because literally his first statement that I was replying to was “if strict gun laws were in place X wouldn’t have happened without actually going into detail about said law. Thus my question.

Reading is hard

again: I'm not against tough vetting of gun owners, I am in favour of gun laws that are stricter than the current american ones. yes, tougher gun laws would help with the gun-related casualties in the united states.

nonetheless, they dont help against the two specific scenarios we are talking about here:
1.: a wealthy psycho who meticulously plans a shooting spree over months and had the time and money to buy whatever weapons he needed on the black market.
2.: a psycho who would have had to be blacklisted even under the current, liberal gun laws, but was not because of a communication failure between authorities.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 9 2017 12:36pm

well... what he said was the LV shooter specifically wouldn't have had as many guns. that's highly speculative, as is your assertion that the LV shooter would have sought X# of guns on the black market to have the same number of guns. mentally ill people are weird, we have no idea if that guy would have illegally sought guns, or even if he would have known where to start down that road, despite him being willing to mow people down with said guns, mental illness is weird.

but that entire conversation is what i'm talking about "what would have stopped ________ event" is a stupid conversation that's not really the point of gun laws. If you're speaking about gun laws prevention of a single event is idiotic. Now if you want to have a conversation about a specific event and look at who in that person's life could have acted differently that's a worthwhile discussion IMO.

but in general discussing gun laws and single events in terms of prevention is foolish, and usually is a way for people who instinctively reject all gun control to deflect form the core issue which is TOTAL gun deaths and TOTAL mass shootings. in short its a talking point that the right wing keeps wheeling out on behalf of the NRA to control sheep minded people. i'm not saying you fit that definition nor should my post be read as if it applies entirely to yours, it was slightly pertaining to your post/conversation and was also a rant on that as my pet peeve.




lol, it's wildly speculative to even say that. r u being serious? how can u know that mental health requirements wouldnt have stopped the LV shooter. or that he would have bought illegal weapons. on top of that how do you know the same NY attack wouldnt have happened even if we restricted immigration? poor penniless immigrants can get in to make a better life but ISIS who controls massive amounts of oil money can't get someone in?


This post was edited by thesnipa on Nov 9 2017 12:44pm

the same numbers of guns is irrelevant. hes not an army.


if a law is being proposed as a solution to these types of attacks its not 'stupid' to address whether they would have actually prevented them or not.
Often gun control laws are ridiculous and would do little to reduce crime and these mass shootings while restricting and criminalizing Americans who want guns for non-evil reasons.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Nov 9 2017 12:53pm

Those particular incidents could have been prevented or perhaps reduced in seriousness with much stricter gun laws. The Texas shooter does fall under that paradigm, because if assault weapons were banned, and acquiring any gun required much more nuanced background checks, he wouldn't have been able to legally acquire them.

A radical Muslim committed to the cause of killing Americans could potentially save the money, acquire the visa, go to Mexico, cross the border, and run people over with a truck. Not easy, but doable, just as it's possible Stephen Paddock could've somehow found all these assault weapons on the black market. If I'm playing the odds in this hypothetical world, he probably gets caught by law enforcement.

This post was edited by IceMage on Nov 9 2017 12:56pm