Although many of you were ready to use this event as an example to further your argument to have tighter gun control laws or not. I was not ready to get int the discussion , until now.as with all debates that we have, we need to respect every one's right to free speech . This is not going on. There is no way that we can come to an agreement if we are not willing to listen to the other sides arguments. We may not have to agree with the points that are made, but we should respect the right for people to make those points.I fully support the right for people to own weapons. The majority of weapon owners follow the laws set in place and would only use their weapons if needed and only as a last resort . Taking their weapons away will not cure the problems that we have, it will only make us defenseless against the problems.
I know it is a overused argument, but when has a gun killed anyone on it's own. When has it drove it self to a public place and opened fire on people ? There has always been a person or people behind a gun pulling the trigger.That is what we should focus our attention on . How do we stop these people from committing these horrible acts?
Banning weapons is not the answer, where there is a will there is a way. For example we need to look no farther than or war on drugs. Have we won that war yet? Again, I repeat when there is a will there is a way.
I think as a society we need to start tuning out the media's coverage of these events as a start. Although nobody wants these events to happen , the media seizes the opportunity to increase their ratings and give you every ounce of details regarding the event. They go into great detail of the person committing these crimes lives. They make these people and what whatever reason they had for doing these things bigger than life. This , in my opinion, only fuels the next crazy person to do something horrifying.
I agree with President Obama, this does have to stop and maybe one of these high profile people should turn the attention on the media's attention to all of this , we may begin to start the process to stopping this.
Please feel free to add your comments here, please be respectful though
ReplyDeleteWE NEED BETTER CONTROL AND A BETTER HEALTH SYSTEM TO HELP POEPLE WHEN THEY NEED IT
ReplyDeleteI agree with you D.J. Taking away guns is not the answer. I think we need to focus on what is causing people to do these things, guns have been around for hundreds of years so why is this a new problem? What has changed that is now causing people to not respect others and not respect human life?? I really wish I had the answers because being a parent and a gun owner I want to do everything possible to make sure this never happens again.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that tighter gun control laws are not the answer. It certainly is part of the answer to a very complex problem. Countries such as Canada and Japan, both of which have tighter laws than we do in the U.S., have staggeringly low gun-death rates compared to ours. The only reason to own a semi-automatic weapon is to kill another person, period. Our Constitution, which was written over 200 years ago, certainly did not intend for average citizens to be able to own the weaponry that's available now, and the 2nd amendment was added when our country WAS protected by a well-regulated militia. We no longer need a militia, and our gun culture is not well-regulated. I have yet to see an instance in which a mass shooting was thwarted because someone else with a gun was able to stop it.
ReplyDeletewhat does tighter gun controls even matter anyways? are we going to give people a more thorough background investigation when they buy a gun?, maybe make everyone register there rifles?...this kid didnt even buy the guns he used to kill these poor kids, they were his mothers guns...makes no difference, like DJ said, if theres a will theres a way...if us honest people give up our guns, the only ones who will be armed are the criminals, leaving us helpless.
ReplyDelete" I have yet to see an instance in which a mass shooting was thwarted because someone else with a gun was able to stop it"- This kind of proves my point about the media's coverage of these events. The media may or may not cover someone who may stop or limit an evil person's actions. But here is one example-
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting
Yes two people were killed in this instance, but further loss of life was avoided because of the Vice Principal.
I know people who own semi-automatic weapons and yes they bought them to kill other humans, but only in defense of themselves and in defense of the people they love.
do a search on how many people were killed last year from baseball bat assaults, maybe we should ban those too, or maybe anybody that has aspergers should be put in prison... where does it stop, this is so ridiculus
ReplyDeleteI stand corrected about not a single example of an armed civilian stopping a shooter. Apparently there is an example. But I do not buy that the media's coverage of such instances is so biased that it happens with a frequency and we are just unaware because the media doesn't want us to know. If people's lives were truly being saved on a regular basis by people who, with their own weapons took it upon themselves to stop shooters, what motive would there be to NOT report that?
ReplyDeleteAnd yet there's this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
No one needs a semi-automatic weapon, period, even to defend themselves and the people they love. Even assuming that the defender has within him the capacity to kill another human being, he or she does not need the firepower in a semiautomatic weapon to do it.
I didn't say that someone needs a semi-automatic weapon, but if someone chooses to have one and are a responsible gun owner, then they should have it.Banning these weapons will not get rid of them people will get them regardless if they are against the law. In fact it may be even easier, because why would you need a background check?
DeleteMy point is that no one should be able to choose to have one - the fact that he or she wants one is a moot point. While banning them may not get rid of every single one currently in someone's possession, I don't think it is a fair assumption that people will get them in the scale that they do now, regardless of the law, and I absolutely do not think it would be easier. Outlawing them in many other countries has proven to be a very effective means of reducing or eliminating deaths as a result of semi-automatic weapons, so I honestly do not understand the argument that people will continue to get them, regardless of what we do.
ReplyDelete