fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3193 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3193 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Da Vinci's Demons]

__________________________________________________

03. tb - please check sizes when using tinypic
[Harry Potter, general]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Raffles by E.W. Hornung]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Avengers: Age of Ultron]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Star Trek: The Next Generation]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Wreck It Ralph]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Steven Universe]

__________________________________________________

09.

[David Bowie]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 009 secrets from Secret Submission Post #456.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think your side has a point, but the other also has a point in that the US will never move closer to being comparable to the UK/Australia/etc if we never make these laws. Banning guns wouldn't be an immediate solution but nothing would be, the idea is over time

Banning guns will keep guns out of law-abiding people's hands. It won't keep them out of criminals' hands.

(na)
Because "law-abiding people" having guns help to prevent criminals and murders to use theirs?

It makes them easier targets when they can't defend themselves.

Unless they have their gun on hand, their finger on the trigger and have a pretty good aim, I'm pretty sure the one wanting to kill someone will still be able to do so before they can react to the threat.
Which is why, despite how many people own guns, there's never a report of a "hero" who used their gun to stop the mass shooter before anyone was killed.

(And if defense is really the ~~excuse~~ reason, bulletproof vests sound slightly better than a gun. Since, you know, the only way to use a gun is to attack someone else)

Which is why, despite how many people own guns, there's never a report of a "hero" who used their gun to stop the mass shooter before anyone was killed.

Yeah, that's the thing that always gets me about the, "We should just arm all the good guys, problem solved!" crowd.

Let's put aside the fact that sometimes who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are isn't always so clear cut and black and white. In so many of the mass shootings that have happened, the shooter was NOT felled by some random citizen with a gun. Instead, one of these three scenarios usually wound up playing out:

1. They killed themselves, which takes the choice out of anyone else's hands right off the bat.

2. Law enforcement officials took them down. Which makes sense, because they, unlike your average citizen, are TRAINED to do things like that, and know how to get the shooter without endangering innocent people's lives further.

3. The shooters were tackled by citizens or law enforcement, arrested, and brought in peacefully. No weapons needed or used by anyone.

I don't know what exactly the "arm the average citizens!" crowd thinks will happen if their idea comes to pass, if they genuinely think it'll be like the movies and the badass action hero(es) will come in to save the day or what. But so far, the way most of the mass shootings have ended doesn't seem to lend much credence to their suggestion being a viable, necessary one.

people need special training in order to be ready whenever someone randomly decides to storm a classroom with bullets.

are you suggesting all americans be trained for combat and be in a constant state of combat readiness on a daily basis?

Serious question: in the scenario you're suggesting, what would make guns different from other illegal weapons that we don't live in fear of tons of criminals having right now?

I can think of a few ideas but I'd like to hear what you're actually thinking since this is one of the typical lines said in a gun control argument but it's rarely followed up on.

I don't even know what you're asking tbh. In what scenario that ayrt doesn't appear to be suggesting are guns different from other weapons that people aren't using to shoot up schools? What?

The scenario they're suggesting is that if we ban guns then only criminals will have guns because they don't follow laws anyway and presumably people will be in more danger because of that. But right now we don't worry about weapons that are already illegal only being in the hands of criminals. What makes handguns different? Does that make more sense or did I just repeat what I said before without clearing anything up?

I do think there are some reasonable answers here (and reasonable counterarguments to those and then to those and so on) but I rarely hear people actually explaining the details of this argument so I'm curious to hear from someone else.

With a gun in your hand and a drink/drug/raaaaage in your body, you can go from law-abiding to criminal very very quickly. And someone's dead in front of you. Whereas without a gun they might be fine or injured. Jawdropping how people think the world is divided into gooooood types of people and baaaaaad types of people.

Banning guns wouldn't be an immediate solution but nothing would be, the idea is over time

This. I don't get the defeatist attitude of "Well, this is going to happen no matter what!" when it comes to this issue. That's like saying, "Well, there's no point in locking your doors or buying a safe, 'cause hey, people are gonna break in and steal things no matter what!" or "There's no use in making laws against rapists or murderers, 'cause hey, people are going to rape and murder no matter what!"

Nobody advocating for gun control expects this problem to go away overnight. Nobody. And none of them are naïve enough, or at least most of them aren't naïve enough, to think that shootings will stop completely if we put proper regulations and restrictions in place. So why the pro-gun side seems to imply we do think otherwise, I don't understand.

I just fail to see the harm in at least TRYING to get some legislation passed. Just some to begin with. Test the waters. See how it goes. If it doesn't work, guess what? We can always keep trying new ideas and fine-tuning the laws.

But if some new, tougher gun control legislation is passed and it DOES prove work, and we see these sorts of news stories becoming less and less common, then...where exactly is the problem, again?

[ SECRET POST #3193 ]

Re: Oregon shooting

Re: Oregon shooting

Re: Oregon shooting

Re: Oregon shooting

Re: Oregon shooting

Re: Oregon shooting

Re: Oregon shooting

Re: Oregon shooting

Re: Oregon shooting

Re: Oregon shooting

Re: Oregon shooting

Re: Oregon shooting