GOP rep. receives threatening email after shooting

[August Blue 8,566]

2 minutes ago, PartySick said:

I mean...you're not really wrong

I just thought the education route was at least more realistic than the total ban idea

Oh no totally. The ones who are still taking about banning guns I'm like 'Girl, you got more chance to meet Trump at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Moscow during a goldenshower spied by the russian government () than having guns banned' 

Actually, that's an idea that would make sense... If we weren't living in a twisted world already. 

 

[PartySick 174,830]

41 minutes ago, August Blue said:

Oh no totally. The ones who are still taking about banning guns I'm like 'Girl, you got more chance to meet Trump at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Moscow during a goldenshower spied by the russian government () than having guns banned' 

Actually, that's an idea that would make sense... If we weren't living in a twisted world already. 

 

[MJHolland 12,725]

12 hours ago, PartySick said:

The surrounding areas are more lax on guns though  it's not like weapons disintegrate automatically when entering a no-weapons zone

Not that I think more gun laws necessarily means less gun crime, I'm just saying it's probably not the most fair thing to say since other countries have far less issue with gun crimes and it's due to their stricter gun laws 

Personally, I think the solution is education and information. It's far too easy for any Tom, ****, or Harry to get their hands on a gun. Longer waiting times, thorough background checks done by law enforcement or a special government agency, and hell, why not throw in a required gun course in high school? I know it sounds crazy at first but knowledge is never a bad thing. Sex ed help cut the rate of teenage pregnancies and STD infections drastically, I'd imagine firearm education could do something similar when it comes to curbing gun crime. I know a Colorado(?) elementary school did something like that with a bit of success. The kids learned to not fear, hate, or worship guns. They're just tools that are capable of doing some awful things in the wrong hands.

So yeah, more intense regulations rather than harsher restrictions is the way to go imo. Too often this discussion becomes "you're either with guns or you're against them!!1!!1" when there's solutions that'll appease any reasonable person* on both sides of the aisle 

  Reveal hidden contents

*meaning liberals who want every gun to be destroyed will be just as unhappy as conservatives that want everyone to be able to own guns with no records or government interference attached. They're unreasonable requests and either unrealistic or unsafe...or both  So they can sit in their wrongness and be wrong while the rest of us agree to disagree on certain things, come to a compromise, and get on with our lives. Hopefully with fewer bullets in the air and fewer shootings on the news 

Well if there was a place to talk about it, it's here

 

11 hours ago, stvn said:

Wow, way to oversimplify. The areas directly around Chicago don't have the same laws, and there are already a ton of guns in rotation in Chicago. There are multiple factors at play here. One of the factors is poverty, culture, and predisposition to gang violence because of proximity to it and because of poverty and broken homes and lack of sufficient education. That is the real epidemic in Chicago, and it leads to gun culture.

Now, even if gun control laws have some positive effect in reducing gun violence in Chicago, the other factors are still there.

If you want to see the best example of what happens when you really don't have access to guns, look at Austrailia. Years and years ago they had a terrible mass shooting and they swiftly and decisively took action in controlling guns. They have not had a mass shooting SINCE THEN. This is a good example because the policy was enacted across the WHOLE country and it's not exactly easy to go to a different continent, buy a gun, and bring it back.

So in short, and again, please stop oversimplifying. It's quite unbecoming.

Too* 

It's a fact that liberal states with stricter gun laws have more gun violence than red states where gun ownership is higher and gun regulations are more relaxed. Texas, Florida, etc. have way fewer gun deaths than New York and California. Just pointing out the lack of correlation  

I'm not saying we need more relaxed gun laws or more guns on the streets. The opposite actually. But regulations are not going to solve this problem if urban communities are unwilling to change their culture of violence. 

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

 

Too* 

It's a fact that liberal states with stricter gun laws have more gun violence than red states where gun ownership is higher and gun regulations are more relaxed. Texas, Florida, etc. have way fewer gun deaths than New York and California. Just pointing out the lack of correlation  

I'm not saying we need more relaxed gun laws or more guns on the streets. The opposite actually. But regulations are not going to solve this problem if urban communities are unwilling to change their culture of violence. 

First, I didn't misuse the word "to" so I'm confused on your opening line :p

Again, when you talk about gun violence in Texas and Florida vs. California and New York you are again ignoring some of the many factors at play. 

I'm glad that you agree that we need stricter gun laws.

As I said, there are multiple factors. As I said, part of changing cultures of violence in certain places is improving access to education and fighting poverty. This is what will truly lead to a change in violence. I don't think it's fair to say these communities are "unwilling" to change. I am not justifying violence in any case regardless of what situation a person was born into, but poverty is not something that can just be changed by will alone in many cases. We have to address these issues on a policy level and also give these communities the tools they need to move up in life.