Anonymous #1 1w

Why does a law abiding citizen need a machine gun? You can all keep your cutesy little hand guns for whatever weird reason you use, but assault rifles that can kill from 200 feet away seem unnecessary and have led to the deaths of hundreds of men women and children. Every human has a family, and no one deserves to die in that manner

-2

Anonymous OP 1w

The guns used in the majority of mass shootings are handguns. Not some cutesy oh just over half, no. 85% of mass shootings use handguns.

2

Anonymous OP 1w

I understand where you’re coming from, so let me break this down for you. A shot from 200 feet away is not that impressive when you realize how many civilians can make that shot. It’s the same shot as shooting any deer or elk. I agree the gun violence in this country is out of hand, but it’s just not as simple as outlawing weapons. I also agree that this was a horrible event that happened. I don’t think anybody should deserve to be shot. There’s just not a good way to do this without rewriting-

1

Anonymous #1 1w

-the constitution. The same constitution that allows us to speak freely on this app, that allows for us to have things such as Due Process and privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures. To rewrite one constitutional amendment would be detrimental BECAUSE it would open up the field of changing all of the other amendments. I will reiterate that gun violence is a truly terrible thing and im not agreeing with it. What are your thoughts on reform and what it looks like?

0

Anonymous OP 1w

1994 and 2025 are two very different things. Trying to reinforce a ban after the majority of people have the things you’re trying to ban is nearly impossible. It’s the same as the prohibition. Do you think people stopped drinking because it was illegal? No. Bans do not work effectively. I appreciate your statement thought.

4

Anonymous #1 1w

I think you’re taking the term “ban” too literally. It means enacting stronger parameters around obtaining these weapons, better book keeping of who has possession. Right now any person can get a licensee and weapon, if we put a ban in place it’ll be harder for people of poor mental health/stability to get licenses. If just once life is saved from a ban it’s worth it to me. And I don’t care who it inconveniences

0

Anonymous OP 1w

No I think you’re just using the word “ban” incorrectly

1

Anonymous OP 1w

And also not any person can get a license and a weapon. Felons cannot, children cannot, and believe it or not, your right to bear arms can be stripped away from you by a judge due to mental health. Your loved ones just have to step up and go to the courts

4

Anonymous #3 1w

So Charlie would’ve been safer if he had a gun on his hip to “protect himself?” You can’t protect yourself from a threat you can’t see.

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

Would you go shoot someone at an event that you knew most everyone there had a gun? Bonus points if those people actually know how to use it

1

Anonymous #2 1w

yes thank you.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

As #2 said, I believe you need to research this topic before arguing it on a public forum. There are MANY restrictions on who can and cannot have a gun. It doesn’t stop these people from getting guns because evil people do evil things.

3

Anonymous #2 1w

Utah allowed open carry on that campus, probably half of those people DID have guns on them yet did that deter the psycho? No. Did anyone shoot the psycho back? No. Did anyone catch him yet? No. If it was harder for him to get a gun he maybeee he wouldn’t have been a killer. Those teachers in schools could have guns but at the end of the day it would be unsafe to store around kids and the school shooter would catch them by surprise anyway. Very rarely does “an innocent civilian” with a gun win

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Having a gun on you doesn't give you a bubble of protection from guns, nothing does except body armor. It's an additional deterrent that decreases the expected value of any wrongdoers by increasing their risk if they were to pursue harming the said individual that got a gun for self defense.

3

Anonymous #1 1w

There’s literally no psych evaluation required to get a gun??? Anyone with a clean criminal background can get one. If they required a psych eval by a professional before clearance, they would probably catch mass shooters before they even get the chance to touch a gun

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Shooting back at a sniper on a roof while there is a fleeing crowd would have been very stupid of them. This is very unlikely to be less than a professional hit. The fact that the gunman was able to hit his target that accurately and then flee and has yet to be caught? It is not the same thing as an average Joe shooting somebody. I really really encourage you to research this topic more.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Again that is just incorrect. While yes there is no psych evaluation, people who have these records of severe mental illnesses or those with charges are not allowed to have guns. How would you suggest we implement a “psych evaluation” that wouldn’t infringe upon peoples constitutional right?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Do you have any idea how many people are living with undiagnosed mental illness/instability. So if someone’s never been to the doctor specifically for mental illness you’re just going to take their word for it and give them a gun? Telling the public, yes you can buy guns AS LONG AS you pass our mandated psych eval, is not an infringement of anyone’s rights. It’s a protection of the public. Other people have guns will never deter a killer from shooting in public, they don’t fear death

0

Anonymous #3 1w

That’s exactly what you’re trying to say though?? Mass shooters do not fear the concept of OTHER people also having guns, there’s no deterrent. The only way to stop them is to get guns out of their hands, to make it harder for them to get guns

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I fear you don’t know the constitution nor what you’re arguing about. It’s actually quite funny listening to your take on this. Yes, people are undiagnosed with mental illnesses. So should people who struggle with, I don’t know, anxiety be singled out? How would you enforce the is? Mental illnesses is not just cut and dry. And yes, implementing a psychology evaluation would infringe on their right to own a gun. And in this logic, is it not the people who should be getting help rather than-

1

Anonymous #1 1w

-the guns being outlawed?

1

Anonymous OP 1w

They do, actually. Mass shootings typically take place in areas where gun ownership is low. Such as schools or public spaces like malls. In these areas, typically having a weapon is banned. They fear those who have guns so they go after those who don’t.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I agree! So the problem isn't the guns, it's the people. I personally think we should open psych wards since there is seemingly a scary amount of people that can't take care of themselves or make rational decisions.

5

Anonymous #3 1w

Yes I agree completely with you. Psych wards should be readily available but also have livable conditions. We shouldn’t fall back to past times where these people were treated unfairly. But it is also unfair for the public to be scared to go outside because of fear of these people.

6

Anonymous #1 1w

Oh sweet boy, please stay in school. You somehow managed to miss every single point being made. The enforcement of a psychological evaluation before handing out licensure for a weapon that is capable of fatal force is not at all against the US constitution. It is not singling out people who get anxious or have eating disorders. It is to red line individuals with undiagnosed schizophrenia, bpd, homicidal or suicidal ideations that have not been brought to the attention of a medical professional.

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

This is the same eval that law enforcement officers at the state and federal levels go through before being allowed in the field with their weapons. Protecting the innocent public should not be controversial in ANY way shape or form.

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

Gross, don’t call me that. Also, please stay in school as well. It is very easy to see you genuinely don’t know what you’re talking about, and that’s okay! It’s okay to be young and have big opinions. I can see the point you’re trying to make, and all im saying is it is impossible to do so without other problems arising. You have to think about the whole picture rather than your sliver of it that you’re thinking about. But I love that you’re exploring possibilities!

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Aw did I offend you, I hope he doesn’t shoot me 🙃 I finished school, bachelors in criminal justice, masters in forensic psychology, and a doctorate in global security and terrorism studies. If you’d like to read my thesis I can’t send it to you. The world is so much bigger than just the US and once you leave it you’ll learn so much from other countries and the way they protect their citizens and their rights while also keeping everyone alive. They don’t use guns to deter more guns

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I find this very unlikely and if so I hope you pursue your career field more than an anonymous app where you are spewing nonsense. As somebody who is ACTUALLY in a forensic as well as inan major, you sound silly. You don’t understand the laws you’re demanding to change. I’ve been to these other countries you’re trying to praise, and while they do have their benefits, they also have their severe downfalls. Try looking at this from a more diverse perspective and I promise you’ll understand better!

0

Anonymous #1 1w

That’s actually not a thing? You don’t have to lie to try to drive your point home, it’s ok to admit you just haven’t learned it all yet. No one on this app really cares. People are allowed their opinions and frankly thank god you’re not in charge of a country because we’d all be dead lol please keep an open mind in the future and realize how special life is, it’s worth protecting, there’s no need to facilitate tragedies simply out of fear of public retaliation. Countries need leaders with

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Strong back bones and stronger morals. I’d rather piss off the mentally ill extremists than allow more innocent people to die

1

Anonymous OP 1w

lol you’re actually so funny. What’s not a thing? My intelligence Analysis major or my forensic major? If you really think I care about what you think you’re silly. I have agreed with you on your stance and have tried to explain to you that it’s not possible, as well as encourage you to think deeper into the issue. A pray you find a life and stop trying to seem more educated than you are on an app that as you said, does not care about you.

0

Anonymous #1 1w

Sure, stay in that school! I never lied, I have no reason to lie. I made a statement that you decided was worth your time to argue but your points aren’t conceptualizing anything I mentioned. You misconstrue what has been said and twisted it to make it seem extremist in nature and that couldn’t be further from the truth. Protecting people shouldn’t be controversial, enabling people to harm others seems like an odd stance to have and is, actually, worse constitutionally than anything I said

0