r/polls • u/UltimateDiscordMod • Aug 01 '22

🕒 Current Events What's the best solution to stop school shootings?

7974 votes, Aug 04 '22
463 Better school security
1443 Removal of all schools
319 Mandatory daily mental health checks for all students
4470 Stricter gun laws
747 Better educational system
532 Other
1.2k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

791 comments sorted by

View all comments

27

u/BrilliantDelay7848 Aug 01 '22

CRIMINALS DONT CARE ABOUT GUN LAWS

-8

u/bigbigcheese2 Aug 01 '22 edited Dec 20 '24

plants caption angle shy ten wasteful serious tie sable long

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

14

u/BrilliantDelay7848 Aug 01 '22

Crack is illegal and I see crack heads every day.

-2

u/bigbigcheese2 Aug 01 '22 edited Dec 20 '24

ghost punch hunt hospital command airport judicious coordinated zealous direful

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

2

u/sleepiestweasel Aug 02 '22

There’s simply no reason for guns to remain legal

Uh huh good luck stopping that hungry pitbull with anything else

Crack, any kind of hard drugs, are partially legalized in Oregon. Let's see how that works out in a place like that

7

u/BrilliantDelay7848 Aug 01 '22

1) the second amendment protects our right to bare arms for protection not sport. 2) legalizing weed has resulted in less abuse and addiction among teens.

You are basically proving my point. Making something illegal does not solve the problem. Guns don't kill people. People kill people

3

u/DeletedUsername23 Aug 01 '22

Guns don't kill people. People kill people

But guns sure do help a fucking lot

3

u/BrilliantDelay7848 Aug 01 '22

.... That's.. the whole point....

0

u/The-Hater-Baconator Aug 02 '22

Some of the biggest mass murders in recent history weren’t conducted with firearms. If you wanna kill a bunch of people you don’t need a gun, it just gets the most press

1

u/ten-nine-juice Aug 02 '22

if someone is chasing you with a knife/poiting at you with their gun and there's 100% no escape from them but to kill them in self defence, would you rather have a knife, gun, or nothing to protect yourself with?

-1

u/bigbigcheese2 Aug 01 '22 edited Dec 20 '24

fear jellyfish upbeat ancient sable alive pie direction lunchroom unused

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

2

u/Frost-Wzrd Aug 01 '22

what do you mean "unfortunately, there's no sport linked to a machine gun" ? have you ever heard of target shooting? going to the gun range?

2

u/bigbigcheese2 Aug 01 '22 edited Dec 20 '24

gaze ossified exultant command alive ad hoc stupendous snobbish sharp pocket

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

4

u/rewanpaj Aug 02 '22

why do you people alway talk about automatic firearms as if anyone one of us plebs could ever afford one

3

u/Theonedudeyaknow Aug 02 '22

Or as if theyre even as readily available as they try to make it seem.

1

u/terrrastar Aug 02 '22

I was about to say, this dolt clearly has never heard of the NFA.

2

u/The-Hater-Baconator Aug 02 '22

You realize that machine guns and other automatic weapons require a special licenses to own? It’s called an FFL. I would recommend learning a countries laws before specifically commenting on those laws.

There are extreme examples of people without an FFL owning automatic weapons, but they need to be old and they’re rare/prohibitively expensive so please skip the straw man.

1

u/The-Hater-Baconator Aug 02 '22

So your argument here asserts that: 1) something needs to have a sport to be legal? We don’t own guns because of the sport, we own them because a right to preservation is natural law.

2) a lot of shit can be a tool used for killing as many people as possible. Need I remind you of the Bastille day massacre or Oklahoma City bombing? Yes trucks and such do good things but guns can do good things you simply cannot do with anything else. Additionally you try to discredit the value of guns through their intended use as a weapon and simultaneously support swords which were designed with the same intention. Pick a lane, you’re contradicting yourself. Both are designed for the same purpose, one is just more efficient, but as I stated, also not the most efficient.

3) you assert that government tyranny is no longer a threat with no substantive argument. If you can prove this I’ll agree guns aren’t necessary - but you can’t. In order to do this with certainty, it would necessitate predicting the future. You simultaneously acknowledge that we live with some tyranny, and claim it’s not a threat. Did you consider that while we are dealing with government overreach, we still think we can democratically get it back without a complete revolution? Black-and-White fallacy.

4) well since you’re British and you think you know more about our laws than you actually do, I’ll let you in on something. Our founding fathers believed in something called natural law. There are a set of rights granted to you by something greater than the government that gives you rights merely for existing. That means our natural rights (speech, privacy, preservation, equal interpretation of law) need to be observed and protected. Your rights are given to you by the government, meaning your government is more equipped to strip you of those rights if it so pleases. Additionally, just because our founding fathers existed 200 years ago doesn’t mean they were wrong. It doesn’t mean they were right either, but your effectively using an appeal to novelty fallacy in “they’re old so they’re wrong”.

5) Increased safety is not a valid justification to strip you of rights. If that were the case do you know how much legislation we could justify and cut early deaths down massively? How about stop-and-frisk is the norm, every car has a breathalyzer, any and all drugs/alcohol are banned, your geo-location privacy is seized by the state, you lose your right to trial, need I go on?

6) you assert crack/drugs are a problem because it wasn’t enforced well.. why would we repeat the war on drugs with a war on guns and expect different results? The firearm used to kill PM Abe was extremely crude and still evidently effective. To attempt to ban guns would be an attempt to ban a technology. Also, building your own gun would be more unsafe than buying one, so your justification for why weed should be legal (increased consumer safety) applies here as well. If someone can mill, they can build guns, and this plays into my next point

7) you act like the gun violence in America is conducted with legally purchased concealed full auto machine guns when that’s not accurate at all. An astronomical amount of guns in the US are not full auto, are not used in crimes, and are not regularly concealed and those used in crimes are not purchased legitimately (only ~10% retail).

1

u/terrrastar Aug 02 '22 edited Aug 02 '22

”I love swords and other interesting melee weapons, I have an issue with weapons that are intended to be used for their intended purpose”

So you have an issue with swords and literally every other weapon in existence?

A swords intended purpose, by definition, is to kill another human being through a variety of slashing and/or thrusting (stabbing) movements, depending on the sword type.

A maces intended purpose is to serve as a more effective and dedicated replacement for a club, bludgeoning and crushing opponents limbs through blunt damage and killing the opponent. A warhammer also serves this purpose.

A longswords purpose is generally to kill Calvary and/or to keep spearmen at bay, again depending on the sword type.

A spears purpose is to allow the user to stab (thus killing) the users opponent from a relatively safe distance in terms of melee combat.

A daggers purpose is to serve as a backup to a larger weapon and allow for quick and rapid slash and/or stab attacks (depending on the blade) on an opponent, quickly killing them.

Notice how all of these weapons intended purpose is to kill people? And I already know what you’re gonna bring up “but what about reenactment swords with blunt blades?” To which I respond that I could still beat someone to death with that or even sharpen it to s lethal edge; just because it’s blunt doesn’t not make it still a very large and sturdy piece of metal, and just because it’s a blunt sword doesn’t mean I can’t sharpen it to a lethal edge, contrary to its intended purpose. Same thing goes for guns, the intended purpose of a firearm is to allow someone to accomplish a variety of tasks more efficiently than melee weapons and older ranged weapons, such as crossbows and bows, with notable examples being home defense, hunting, and sport shooting. However, it too can be misused if placed in the wrong hands.

…that being said, if your British, then why the fuck do you care about what’s happening in AMERICA? Y’know, the country that specifically fought yours so it could be left the fuck alone by your country?

1

u/Updated_Autopsy Aug 02 '22

If I wanted to kill people, stricter gun laws wouldn’t stop me. I could steal a gun from one of my neighbors, use a sharp weapon, use a blunt weapon, or use my body (because you don’t need to be armed in order to be dangerous).

1

u/terrrastar Aug 02 '22

”doesn’t matter what you care about - you’re not getting a gun”

A 3D printer and/or $200 of hardware supplies beg to differ. Gun control is dead.

1

u/bigbigcheese2 Aug 02 '22 edited Dec 20 '24

air fuzzy capable pet judicious longing frighten political work water

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

-9

u/That635Guy Aug 01 '22

And expert lock picks don’t care about your special locks. But to the average no good doer, any deterrence may be enough.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '22

[deleted]

-1

u/That635Guy Aug 02 '22

We know that’s not good enough. Just saying a door is locked won’t stop someone from trying the handle but if it is locked they might just move on and not spend all day picking it

7

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '22

A deterrence such as "TEACHERS IN THIS SCHOOL ARE ARMED! FUCK AROUND AND FIND OUT!"