Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I use the phrase "banning all guns" for balance in this examination, obviously real gun control would not ban all guns.
So let's proceed.
Some say the key to stopping mass killings is to ban all Muslims entry to the country.
Others say the key to stopping mass killings is to ban guns.
Let's quickly look at the roles each of these two variables play in mass killings.
All mass killings require both a combination of a perpetrator and a weapon to be carried out.
Perpetrator = In some mass killings in the United States, the perpetrator(s) has been Muslim, but not all mass killings. Some mass killings have had non-Muslim perpetrators.
Weapon = In virtually all mass killings in the United States the weapon used has been a firearm. Some contend other weapons can be used, and to a limited extent, things like hatchets and knives make up a small percentage of mass killing weapons. But they tend not to be as efficient as firearms and therefore are usually serve as a second choice. An example of an attempt at a mass killing using a knife outside of the United States involves a knife-wielding perpetrator in China who stabbed 20 school children of which all survived.
So based on the above, if we look for the most common denominator to decide which one we want to ban to control mass killings, the most obvious answer is guns. It's guns and not Muslims because guns are the most common denominator involved in mass killings, not Muslims. It's not Muslims because we know that in some cases the perpetrator is non-Muslim. But the weapon is seldom non-gun.
The most common denominator in mass killings is guns because we know in most cases of mass killings a gun is used as a weapon but a Muslim is not always the perpetrator.
So wouldn't you want to ban the most common denominator in mass killings?
Now some will object to banning guns by saying criminals intent on killing lots of people won't care about guns laws and get guns anyway.
However, if guns were made illegal for civilians (specifically assault weapons) potential mass killers would first have to commit a crime to obtain a gun to use in a mass killing. It follows that if guns were illegal a potential perpetrator of a mass killing could be caught in the act of trying to obtain an illegal firearm before a mass killing and thus be thwarted in performing that future mass killing.
But with guns legal, a potential mass killer criminal can obtain a gun legally without committing a crime to obtain that firearm and proceed to perpetrate a mass killing.
At least with guns illegal criminals would have perform that extra criminal act of obtaining an illegal firearm before they commit a mass killing. Criminals would have to risk getting caught first in obtaining an illegal firearm before a mass killing could occur. And that one crime, if detected, could be enough to deter a mass killing.
Last edited by Shankapotomus; 06-21-2016 at 01:00 PM..
I'm of course open to discussion on changes to policy on immigration and gun laws. If a law can be made that effectively keeps guns away from dangerous people without compromising the rights of ordinary people to own a gun, I'm on board. It's hard to ensure both of these though. As for immigration, I oppose doing it based on religion, but country of origin, maybe not. Syria is an unstable country at the moment, and putting tighter regulation on countries of risk is not, in my mind, unreasonable. In the same way that tighter regulation or even temporary freezes on immigration from countries with some sort of contagious disease is spreading would not be unreasonable. But banning people because they're skin is the wrong color or they worship the wrong deity is as unconstitutional as banning all guns.
Anyone advocating 'banning all Muslims' is infringing on the constitution.
Anyone advocating 'banning all guns' is infringing on the constitution.
Both are bad answers in an open society.
exactly
if we aren't supposed to blame billions of Muslims for the actions of a few, then we shouldn't blame 100's of millions of guns in the hands of responsible Americans on a few psychopaths.
ISIS is not concerned with our gun laws, they will always be able to obtain guns illegally, as will most criminals
a gun ban will only effect legal gun owners, law abiding hard working Americans whom are trying to protect their family from armed criminals and soon ISIS after all the "Refugees" (ISIS operatives) get here
A gun ban will ensure a smooth quiet transition to Sharia Law here in the US
Firstly banning Muslims or more precisely keeping adherents of Islam within a certain population percentage argument is not just related to mass shootings, it's a much bigger topic.
if we aren't supposed to blame billions of Muslims for the actions of a few, then we shouldn't blame 100's of millions of guns in the hands of responsible Americans on a few psychopaths.
You didn't read my post, did you?
Not all perpetrators of mass killings are Muslim but virtually all weapons in mass killings are guns.
Think about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
