It does not matter who was killed ; children or adults !! A shooting is a shooting . My argument still stands ; banning guns will not stop these things from happening !!
The numbers are 4 victims including the shooter to be called a mass shooting. This one was in Margaret river 3 adults 4 children grandfather was shooter. Was a shooting last year but only 3 people so not mass shooting.
Ok I'm going to check it out. Wilson has a D.C government building named after him and a school never could figure why from what I no of him anyway.
I hate to get involved in a sensitive subject when I am new but here goes. Firearms are not the problem, medication alone is not the problem. We have to change the way we handle mental illness. School shootings account for a very small amount of gun deaths. We have to focus on one problem at a time and in my opinion guns are not what we should focus on. We are trying to treat a symptom of a bigger problem.
I agree I'm not a supporter of strict gun control. I don't think anyone should have or need an assault rifle and don't think the mentality ill should own guns or those convicted of domestic violence but don't think handgun restrictions are useful or a good thing or laws meant to in effect be a ban by making it so hard to buy a gun.
Why should I, a law abiding citizen be denied the right to buy something because someone else abuses it? Keep in mind that so called "assault rifles" account for a very small number of murders. Most murders are committed with pistols. The most recent school shooting was committed with a pistol and a shotgun. Keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill. I do not want a so called "assault rifle" but I have recently thought about getting one only because so many want to take them away. My thoughts are that we need to focus on the crime and not a tool that someone uses to commit it. We need to not make laws based on emotion. Take a step back and do something that will make a difference without taking away the rights of the majority. I truly believe that both can be achieved. My ability to buy whatever firearm I want and the ability of people to be safe. I live in a rural area so I am sure that my views are different than others who live in different areas.
The capacity of assault riffles is what makes me want them banned. Even though they are only used in a small amount of shootings. The damage one person can do with one that wants to cause harm is to great I think. I'm ok with no one having something if it saves the life's of others there are a lot of less dangerous things banned or restricted that most people can be trusted to own or purchase. For example anything with ingredients that can be used to make certain drugs are restricted in the amount on person can purchase, and so are some of the chemicals that can be used to make explosives. But believe it or not I do see your point. Guns are most of the time just the symptom. It's our society that's the problem and how it chooses to deal with issues or not deal with them. But in this case I'm ok with the rights of the few ( potential victims of assault riffles ) overweighting the rights of the many. Or what they see as their rights although I disagree.
This will never be done because many people do not view mental illness as an illness. Many people believe that mental illness is psychosomatic and they just try to ignore the fact. There is no money in mental illness so American Pharmaceutical companies will not waste their time with fighting it.
That's a valid point SAB, but I think more accurately there is no money in drugs that the average American can afford. There was a time here when lots of drugs were on the market for certain types of mental illness and even now there are more than a few to treat depression and bipolar disorder, but those are so commonly diagnosed and most insurance plans cover them. For more serious things not so much.
Just as long as you are aware that more people were murdered with a blunt object, and twice as many people murdered with personal weapons (hands, feet, fists) than rifles. If we removed all rifles from society, not just assault rifles, but all rifles, we would not save as many lives as what are lost by getting beat to death. That is my reason to leave them alone. We should not be ruled by fear. I am fine with you having that opinion, so don't take me as being argumentative. I just wanted to show how few lives are lost to rifles. https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
I don't take you as being argumentative at all. We all have different opinions about some things and this forum is about expressing them.
In my opinion it’s bad but I don’t think everyone should be able to have a gun if they gonna shoot innocent people. The gun is not bad it the person who is allowed to use the gun for wrong reasons that is bad .
As a Brit I've never gotten my head around the whole needing a gun thing? Unless you hunt or a farmer then they have no purpose. Yes you can do damage with them but it's harder to go round killing a lot of people with a double barrel shotgun you have to reload every 2 shots or a hunting rifle that doesn't have a large magazine hanging out the bottom of it. And the law may have been to stop a tyrannical government taking over a couple hundred years ago. But let's be honest here. You don't stand a mother fucking chance now. Maybe a couple of million vs the technology of the US army well versed in all areas of combat, especially urban combat thanks to the 15 odd years years dicking around in the middle East.
Well all i can say to you ; is we won the Revolutionary War against the Britts with a bunch of settlers and farmers with hand guns and rifles . And i am sure we will be able to defend our country against any tyrannical government in the future just fine !! Remember the British military was the most powerful back then !!
I can only assume the rest of that is all I care about is protecting your family? In which case my reply is: so do I. But I don't need a gun and so far I've done a fine and dandy job of keeping them looked after. Without the paranoia of somebody wanting to kill me chances are the most likely activity that will effect myself and my family would be an intruder in my home. Now because we have strict gun laws him entering my home without a hand cannon is probably getting him a couple go months in the nick and likely hood of somebody dying is slim. He enters with a gun then he's automatically getting 5 years in jail not including whatever else happens in those moments he's inside my house. 5 years for pinching a 6 year old TV ain't worth it for most thief's.
Sorry got excited and made a presumption. The differences in technological advancement between then and now is huge. The British army then was probably slightly more technologically advanced. How do you think you and your AR15 are stacking up against a drone? The army doesn't have to put bodies on the ground to fuck you up anymore. Very few civilian only forces are touching the army now. The US army now has almost 2 decades of fighting in urban and rural terrain and they are very well versed in it.