General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIT'S. THE. GUNS.
Yes, it's also a hate-filled culture in which homophobia is on the top ten list, certainly.
But no matter who that asshole hated, or how much, or why, it was THE GODDAMNED GUNS that allowed him to kill so many, so quickly, so horribly.
Please, do NOT use this thread to post all the arguments about how if the right person had had the right caliber weapon in the right place at the right time, this wouldn't-a got so far and that's why everybody should be packin'. Just... DON'T.
Being someone who is not unknown within LGBTQ social establishments myself, I also respectfully ask the people I love and sorrow with and fear with and hope for, to discuss the contribution that homophobia and other sick manifestations of a fearful, paranoid, bigoted, dogma-sodden culture made to this horror in the several threads focusing on that.
This OP is about THE FUCKING GUNS.
Or, as I shall call them henceforth, the DEATHTOOLS.
They are tools. Their purpose is to kill.
Deathtools.
What more will it take to convince lawmakers and the deathtool Oligarchs and NRA shills who terrorize them into collaboration, that a community cannot live in freedom from fear when every pathetically inadequate, criminally irresponsible, asshole can get their hands on unlimited deathtools?
Can carry them anywhere, can make them shields against their own fear and inadequacy, and can USE them with the willing collaboration of a ghoulish, profit-obsessed media and a violence-fueled network of subcultures that simply ADORE popular entertainment full of blood and explosions and revenge and go ahead, make-my-day machismo?
WHAT MORE WILL IT TAKE?
Answer me, dammit, you pusillanimous, greed-soaked tools, and the fearful, whiney, inadequate voters who keep electing you!
WHAT?
despairingly,
Bright
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Florida bans guns in clubs/bars. It's noteworthy that in one of the few places Florida bans guns, a mass killing took place. It seems like mass killings almost always take place in establishments where guns are banned.
Response to Kang Colby (Reply #3)
Name removed Message auto-removed
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)to defend guns and peddle right wing talking points...it's a given you're going to get pushback.
Response to tallahasseedem (Reply #11)
Name removed Message auto-removed
nolabear
(41,926 posts)Response to nolabear (Reply #19)
Name removed Message auto-removed
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)I won't insult you, but am curious.
nolabear
(41,926 posts)Response to nolabear (Reply #45)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Darb
(2,807 posts)You are part of the problem.
Fla Dem
(23,542 posts)You say:
I agree assault rifles are too widely available. You then say because of that there is no hope of ever trying to control them. Yes there is. We can enact a law the prohibits all firearm manufacturers from selling assault weapons and ammunition to anyone other than the military and law enforcement. Will that get the current arsenal of weapons off the streets? NO. But it's a start. We have to start somewhere. To do nothing is to accept the fact that the gun manufactures have won, and there is no hope for us to have a civilized society.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Troll
Response to lunatica (Reply #21)
Name removed Message auto-removed
lunatica
(53,410 posts)And you repeat the stupid yet again.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)MSM and anti-gun politicians are in a quandry. Part of their mantra talking points is "more guns = more crime" (demonstrably untrue, but that is another matter). So, everytime/anytime MSM starts chanting that mantra, and calling for bans, they some how expect a groundswell to start which ends in a prohibition-type law against the gun de jure to majically come about and calm the masses. Trouble is, what really happens is the sales of so-called "assalt weapons" (semi-auto rifles) go through the roof; lines form around the block to get into gun shows, hand-truck purchases of ammunition empty big boxes, concealed permit applications slow mainframes, more smash-mouth pro-gun legislation, Hollywood prounouncements from (I got MINE) gun-control elites, huge profits for firearms manufacturers -- the usual littany of counter-productivity. So why does MSM keep doing what it is doing which ends in More guns? Some don't call it stupidity. Some call it insanity.
From a veteran lefty DUer.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)After all, people violate them all the time.
beevul
(12,194 posts)After all, people violate them all the time.
Society needs laws against murder. Murder is wrong every time, and laws against it give society the means to punish it after the fact.
Owning a gun, not so much, but I get that making gun ownership punishable like murder is what more than a few around here want.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)Twist away, that's what you have to do to justify you gun lust.
I specifically referenced the lack of logic behind the idea, so popular with 2A zealots, that there's no use having anti-gun because they will be broken.
beevul
(12,194 posts)You originally said this:
I pointed out that it wasn't the reasoning of the poster you were replying to, but YOUR reasoning. How can I say that? Simple, I went back and read the post you were responding to, and low and behold, that poster never used the reasoning that you attributed to them. It can therefore be safely concluded, since there were two of you in that exchange, that if it wasn't that posters reasoning, that leaves only you.
You concocted it. You then attempted to attribute it to another poster.
I haven't bought a gun in over ten years now, and haven't touched one in weeks.
Some gun lust.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)that you feel good going shopping with your concealed weapon. And chose to do that in a thread in which the OP asks people to not do that.
Good start. I'm sure everyone here now feels safer knowing that you're wandering around, proudly, ready to kill the bad guys.
CBHagman
(16,980 posts)We're still getting information and surely will not know everything for days yet, but the initial report is that there was an armed officer on duty, and he fired at the attacker.
[url]http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/orlando-nightclub-shooting-emergency-services-respond-reports-gunman-n590446[/url]
[Orlando Police Chief John] Mina said a uniformed officer working extra duty exchanged gunfire with the shooter, who officials say was armed with at least two firearms.
"The officer engaged in a gun battle with that suspect. The suspect at some point went back inside the club and more shots were fired. This did turn into a hostage situation," Mina said.
So reports say that someone else was carrying a firearm, legally, and he fought back.
Yet we are still looking at what is the worst mass shooting on American soil.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)So yes - it is the guns.
Nancyswidower
(182 posts)that has contracts for Federal institutions....
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)"If only the clubgoers had been armed, they could've defended themselves!" (because people drinking and, potentially, on drugs...have YOU ever been to a nightclub? at all?...and armed is an excellent combination! And it's not like the hypothetical "good guy with a gun" wouldn't have made things a lot worse, which is what tends to happen in simulations involving people with basic firearms training in a live shooter situation)
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)armed civilians have stopped mass shooters on a number of occasions. It just doesn't fit the preferred narrative of some.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/
metroins
(2,550 posts)Of either that club or a close club.
Called for backup and exchanged gunfire in the beginning.
There was a good guy with the gun. It is too bad he missed. (I'm pretty pro 2a)
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)like george zimmerman protecting us. When you strap your guns on, do you see yourself as society's protector?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)can pretty much be counted on the fingers of one hand. How many times we've had mass shootings so far this year in this country goes beyond the fingers on my two hands and all of my toes.
I'm heartily sick of this bullshit being used as an excuse as to why we don't need sensible gun laws.
Personally, I'm in favor of outright confiscation.
-none
(1,884 posts)Not counting the SWAT Team? I'm sure that number is limited to less than the fingers on one hand also.
The shooter in this case had been looked at by the FBI for some of his activities, so why was he still able to easily buy his weapons? How was he able to have a job where being armed was a requirement?
There is too much wrong with this whole picture to not blame the easily acquired armament in this country.
AllyCat
(16,128 posts)No one, not even a "good guy with a gun" needs an assault weapon. No one.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Banning guns in bars is not what the poster was talking about. He was talking about the ease of which a crazy person can get his hands on such lethal weaponry. Try to clue in.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)It happened because they stopped patting people down too early.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)nes?
MisterFred
(525 posts)Gun control is about making it hard to get automatic guns. Not where they're used. I don't know why you're pretending that's not obvious.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)In the US. Mateen did not use an automatic weapon. As someone reminded me in another post, the last time an automatic weapon was used in a mass shooting might have been the St. Valentine's Day Massacre.
MisterFred
(525 posts)And really easy to convert to full auto.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)But the notion that they are easily converted to full auto is false. It is also illegal. If it were easy you would think criminals would do it, but nobody has used a fully automatic weapon in a crime (that I'm aware of) since the North Hollywood shootout in 1997 in which the bank robbers used illegally converted AK-47/M-16 models.
MisterFred
(525 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)And even the link states that it isn't fully auto after this mod. And you ignored the point that a fully auto weapon hasn't been used in a crime in almost 20 years. The idea that semi-auto's are "military style" weapons is a myth.
MisterFred
(525 posts)It's also really rare for soldiers to fire weapons on full auto. Aim is generally far more important than output.
And if you don't consider $500 easy, then I guess you think it's really hard to get an AR-15 in the first place? Which pretty much deserves an eye-roll.
Come to think of it, isn't the idea that fully auto weapons (banned in the U.S.) haven't been used in many crimes but semi-auto weapons (not banned in the U.S.) are used for crimes all the time a really good reason to ban semi-auto weapons?
I'm going to go with yes. Good evidence for gun control you presented.
Though in truth, the FBI statistics on guns don't generally distinguish between full-auto and semi-auto versions of a weapon. So anyone telling you they know the list of crimes where full-auto weapons were used is lying to you. No such list exists in the united states.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)So sounds like we agree that automatic weapons are not a problem, are not used in crimes, and all the language about "assault weapons" is at best intentionally misleading.
I didn't say that semi-automatic rifles weren't readily available, I said $500 isn't "easy." If you consider $500 easy then congrats on having a lot of disposable income.
No, the fact that a handful of criminals use semi-auto weapons to commit crimes is not a reason to ban those weapons. This is exactly why many people oppose an "assault weapons" ban - you say you just want to ban "assault weapons," but when that passes then you want to ban all semi-automatic weapons. The end game is banning firearms altogether.
Do you really think that if an automatic weapon had been used in any crime over the last 10 years we wouldn't hear about it, regardless of what the FBI does or does not report? The North Hollywood shootout was covered by every major news organization in the US.
MisterFred
(525 posts)Frankly, I think it's just paranoia to assume it would ever happen under this Constitution.
As to $500, you have a point for the ordinary person. But for someone planning on a rampage, it's just another card on a credit card you'll never have to pay back.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Under the current Constitution. My point was more that people say they want to ban "assault weapons," but if that happens move on to banning all semi-automatic weapons. Because to be honest, if you can ban "assault weapons," why can't you ban any semi-auto? There's no real difference between semi-auto rifles and semi-auto pistols. And no real difference between semi-auto pistols and revolvers - all fire one round each time you pull the trigger. The only real difference is magazine capacity.
MisterFred
(525 posts)I'd like a ban on semi-auto above a certain (don't know what) magazine capacity. In much the same way as shotguns are currently handled (max 5 shells).
SpankMe
(2,953 posts)We need to ban weapons this powerful, and change gun-nut culture in America.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)GUNS kill, men with guns kill most often. GUNS suck and SHOULD BE BANNED..
Completely and totally banned - even Police should not walk around with them..they should have to open their trunk and take them out so they have a few minutes to think about the situation.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)
lark
(23,058 posts)So the theory stated doesn't hold up. The military base killings also sets rest to the good guy with a gun theory as well.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)BlueNoMatterWho
(880 posts)Knife-wielding attackers kill 29, injure 130 at China train station
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/
It's the HATE.
trumad
(41,692 posts)BlueNoMatterWho
(880 posts)Knives kill too.
Sophiegirl
(2,338 posts)Knives??? China???
This happened in AMERICA with guns that are too effin easy to obtain.
Jesus fucking Christ.
A reality check is needed here.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Over 800,000 Rwandan Tutsis would say some murderous Hutus had easy access to machetes. 800,000 in less than 3 months. Dead.
It seems these weapons/tools are found in most Rwandan households.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)This shit still happens with other weapons. Like knives.
Happens a lot in China with knives, because guns are not available. In the Uk you can't buy knives without Id at all and they are considering banning all knives that have pointed tips.
In other words, the posters point was 'it's the hate'.
packman
(16,296 posts)I'll agree with you - otherwise, what the shit is wrong with you? This is really a shallow comparison.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)ten men with cleavers, and they only killed 29. That is less than three deaths per person.
This was one gunman with a rapid fire large magazine assault rifle, and in a few minutes he was able to kill over 50.
You can't compare knives to guns.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)I'm putting you on ignore for this.
lostnfound
(16,157 posts)Versus 50 for one crazed isolated person
The ten were separatists engaging in a kind of warfare.
MisterFred
(525 posts)Attacker
Attackers
Two different words. And there's the difference. In China, the Orlando-style attack DOESN'T HAPPEN. In the U.S. it only takes one nut-job.
Stop mis-understanding this on purpose. No one can be that clueless if they're trying.
Promethean
(468 posts)managed to get numbers similar to a single person with a gun. Good job not proving your point. Guns are a problem. They are too damn destructive and you cannot reasonably deny that they were created specifically for the purpose of ending human life.
That said you are right that it is the hateful ideology as well. I wonder when people are going to stop avoiding accrediting atrocious ideas with an ideology of a cult bent on world domination that was created by a child raping warlord.
snort
(2,334 posts)they could have killed 500.
CBHagman
(16,980 posts)At Sandy Hook the attacker shot people, including small children, up to 11 times total, and that within a matter of a few minutes.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)Just because guns are banned in one State or place does not mean a murderer cannot get a gun in a next door State then go elsewhere to kill. It has to be a federal ban on assault weapons.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)The 2d Amendment prohibits that. But France has strict gun laws and those didn't work either.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)Hmmmmm....
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)I pointed out that the Second Amendment prohibits gun bans. Is citing the Constitution a GOP talking point? Or do Democrats also get to point to the Constitution?
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)"But France has strict gun laws and those didn't work either." Right wing talking point. Bank robbery is banned but banks are still robbed. Doesn't mean they should not be banned.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)There are two forms of "bank robbery." One is legal, where the banks rob us, and the other is not, when people rob the banks. I think it should be the other way around.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)Welcome to ignore. 
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)On a percentage of the population, does it come anywhere near to our daily gun toll? Research this and get back to us.
uncle ray
(3,155 posts)on to the next talking point, eh?
No gun is banned. Machine guns, or automatic weapons that are used by various military groups, are legal but very expensive. Every state allows the sale of semiauto pistols and rifles, though a handful of states have magazine capacity limits. If you disagree, or have any facts that support your position, please list them.
Regards
New Orleans Strong
(212 posts)But compare us to them. Compare us to any other country.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)The NRA can go to Hell.
DonP
(6,185 posts)Joining any gun control organizations?
Taking time off work to talk face to face with your legislators in the state capitol?
Most gun control supporters talk a lot online, but are too cheap to pay dues to any groups, won't take their own time to do the actual hard work of changing laws with petitions and such and pretty much just rant online about how nothing ever gets done.
So, what are you actually doing about "fucking the NRA"?
Or just another big mouth online?
People need to stop doing the NRA's disgusting work for them.
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)we should be banning anything that holds over 8 bullets.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Shotguns are illegal if they can hold more than three shells.
That is a legal precedent already in place.
3 bullets at most in any gun.
Calista241
(5,585 posts)States can and do restrict shotgun magazines when being used for hunting purposes, but if you have a shotgun in your home for self defense (or any other reason), there is no magazine limit.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)It is a legal precedent and within the bounds of a well regulated militia. A limit of 3 bullets per gun is constitutional and will end up saving thousands of innocent people.
Not that saving innocent people is important to the NRA types, but fuck the NRA.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Was struck down as unconstitutional
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Could be lots or reasons it was struck down
There is no reason to have a gun that has more than 3 bullets.
Except to kill more people.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)That had no valid scientific reason on how it was arrived at. There are no magazines manufactured for only 7 rounds. If New York could have defended it they would have, they could not and it was struck down.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)You have to load bullets one or two at a time.
Seems like that would make the odds of these huge numbers of deaths a lot less likely. And it would give a large crowd the time to react during reloading.
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)because people could count bullets and it took more time to re load. Just stopping the magazine loaded weapons from being used will result in less murder. Maybe eventually.....
Calista241
(5,585 posts)Essentially, hunters are saying to the government "i want permission to go and hunt." and the State's response is something akin to "fine, you can hunt, but in order to safeguard animal populations, we're going to restrict both the number of animals you can kill, and we're going to limit what types of ammunition and firearms you can use."
I'm not sure the same or similar laws can be used to restrict otherwise legal firearms and ammunition limits while a citizen is excreting their right to self defense. I may be wrong, but I would have thought they would have tried this already.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)when you are hunting, except for the snowgoose Conservation Order where unlimited magazine capacity is allowed. THAT is federal law.
ag_dude
(562 posts)There may be individual state laws but at anything resembling a national level, the three shell limit is about migratory game birds.
You can take the plug out for sport shooting any time you want, you just can't have the capacity for more than three while hunting migratory game birds.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)when hunting.
rdking647
(5,113 posts)just restrict them like we do machine guns and silencers,
require an NFA permit.
Response to TygrBright (Original post)
GreydeeThos This message was self-deleted by its author.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)When the 50% of the people who want strict gun control secede from the 50% of the people who favor gun ownership.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Don't favor strict gun control. Not even close.
PJMcK
(21,984 posts)A large majority of Americans favor laws like universal background checks. I don't view that as "strict gun control" though, which is a really broad and vague concept. When I think of "strict gun control" I think of laws like a ban on semi-automatic pistols.
PJMcK
(21,984 posts)Although I'm not the least bit interested in guns, I recognize the civil right that has been debated and adjudicated. But the hard-line and uncompromising stance by gun owners has made reasonable and protective gun laws impossible to be enacted. The polarizing of US politics has caused our Congress to be ineffective and nonproductive, but that's a broader subject for discussion.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Many/most gun owners support certain laws, like universal background checks. Then there are fringe gun owners who oppose any regulation of any sort. The problem in my mind is when people start calling for a complete ban on guns -- that type of rhetoric makes it difficult to get anything done and is simply fodder for groups like the NRA to oppose more reasonable solutions.
PJMcK
(21,984 posts)The easiest step would be a tightening of background checks. But I think you're correct, TeddyR, the extreme rhetoric polarizes the discussion thus ending it and leaving the horrible status quo.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)And the fact that Congress can't pass something as innocuous (in my mind) as universal background checks when there is such massive support for that law means that it will be really difficult getting anything more controversial accomplished.
nolabear
(41,926 posts)Sorry. Not to take anything away from your important post, but when they swarm like this I can't help but think it's a united front.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)It's going to be a busy day for the moderators.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)nolabear
(41,926 posts)
Logical
(22,457 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Squinch
(50,890 posts)always do: try to derail any productive discussion about gun limitation.
They shrivel and die if we don't converse with them.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)They're afraid all the time. That's why they have guns designed to kill other human beings. They're terrified someone will pass a law preventing them from buying new guns.
Am I afraid of gun violence? Hell, yes I am. Perfectly reasonable fear. But I'm not a coward, because I'm not such a chickenshit that only a gun can make me feel safer.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)I'm putting them all on ignore - no Democrat makes arguments like this on the day of a tragedy. They're exposing who they are in record numbers, I thank the person who started this thread.
Response to TygrBright (Original post)
NightWatcher This message was self-deleted by its author.
lostnfound
(16,157 posts)MisterFred
(525 posts)It's MUCH harder for a mentally unstable person to get/put together explosives than an assault rifle. All you need for the gun is some cash.
If you're not aware of how different those tasks are... well, wow.
-none
(1,884 posts)I'm guessing not many.
Amishman
(5,551 posts)wanting to ban guns because of this type of incident is just as closed minded as wanting to ban Islam.
The problem is hate and mental illness.
Yes, we need better gun laws (safe storage, training reqs for conceal carry). But kneejerk 'OK now lets ban shit' just isn't productive.
reign88
(64 posts)but the truth of the matter is there is only one religion left on the planet that sanctions this type of action in any way, and it's Islam.
Call it a "spin off" or "extremist" variant if you want, but as of this moment there is no other religion that has acts of this type committed daily in its name around the world. That's a fact.
Maybe it will evolve soon, I certainly hope so.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)the mentally ill are no more prone to violence than the general population.
As for the rest of your post: "knee-jerk"? Seriously? How many of these mass shootings do we have to have before we can react strongly? Clearly one-a-day isn't enough for you, so, how many?
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)If it were, we'd have millions dead every year. There are well over 300,000,000 firearms in well over 80,000,000 private hands in America.
What we actually have, is a tiny percentage of a percentage - less than 1 percent - who misuse firearms resulting in gun violence.
Its only 'the guns' to people who hate guns.
Hekate
(90,489 posts)During the same decade, 71 Americans were killed by terrorists. https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/gun-violence-stats-2015/
A lot of people at DU today are trying to make this about "The Other" -- specifically Muslims, but also any fundamentalist Christian.
It's not The Other. The basic mass murderer in the US is a white male of Christian heritage, born in the US of American parents.
beevul
(12,194 posts)It was still a tiny percentage of a percentage of people, using an even tinier percentage of the guns, who were responsible for pulling triggers.
Even more of them are trying to make it about "The Other" (the gun owner) by making it about guns.
Glad to hear you say it.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Just dismiss that number (which by the way is more than ANY OTHER FUCKING COUNTRY ON EARTH) by saying, eh, it's only a small percent. Only a few perpetrators.
You fucking gun nuts just don't care, do you? you don't give a shit about anyone else, about the dead and maimed, about the shear volume of the destruction, which NO OTHER COUNTRY has to deal with.
IT IS THE FUCKING GUNS.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Keep your filthy words and sentiments in your own mouth and out of mine, thanks.
The number was expressed the way it was expressed, in order to IGNORE everyone that didn't do it.
Of course we give a shit. That doesn't mean we agree with solutions from those who hate guns and hate gun owners.
Sorry but nope, it isn't the guns. 99.9+ percent of those who own them do not engage in gun violence. If it was 'the guns', that would not be the case.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)compaired to all guns in the US. This estimate is from 1994, so it's obviously higher now, but compaired to all guns in 1994 (approximately 310 million firearms in the United States: “114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns.” ), the assault weapons were a very small percentage.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html
Civilians DO NOT NEED these kinds of weapons for any reason.
but one thing I'm sure of, people who talk like you are put onto ignore because they're not reasonable even on the day of a tragedy - bye.
MisterFred
(525 posts)Yeah, people kill others anyway. But there's a difference between 5 killed and 50 killed.
Ok, let's accept your premise. For 5 of the victims it's not the guns. For the other 45 it's the guns.
You have to be purposefully ignorant not to see how much easier assault weapons make killing. Why do you think our soldiers don't use pistols? IT'S THE GUNS.
AllyCat
(16,128 posts)And coworkers, neighbors, and had a life. That is now gone. But hey, they were only a tiny percentage. Their lottery numbers just came up, ya know.
Hekate
(90,489 posts)
TNNurse
(6,924 posts)Sure there is desire and want, but not a need.
I am not anti-gun, but I am anti-assault weapon and believe in very strict regulations.
I am sick of the argument that we cannot get all the assault weapons out of the hands of individuals, we do not even try, so of course we can't.
And if the slaughter of children in an elementary school did not bring action, the slaughter of gay people in a night club won't. Unfortunately there are actual human beings who will be fine with it. Some of them are elected "officials" and actually think they are Christians.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)TNNurse
(6,924 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)The phrase "assault weapon" was purposely created to make you think of an assault rifle. They are not the same thing.
The multiple artificial definitions of "assault weapon" are based purely on cosmetic features (their looks, not their abilities).
Francis Booth
(162 posts)types of firearms.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)30 rounds is not "large". Of course, there are smaller and larger sizes available.
Most other semi-auto rifles can use similarly sized magazines.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)You speak for me. Thank you!
TubbersUK
(1,439 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(48,924 posts)Anger and mental instability play a huge role.
As does the blinding mind-numbing effect of religion.
Mateen beat his wife regularly. Angrily. No amount of gun legislation would help that. No amount of anger-management classes would stem the availability of high power weapons, but it might have prevented this massacre.
IronLionZion
(45,380 posts)the desire to kill and hurt a lot of people is the biggest problem here
rockfordfile
(8,695 posts)For the gun culture and conservative religious culture it's "hey you got a problem and hate, go use a gun."
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)
ecstatic
(32,638 posts)with legally purchased guns. This nation is nuts. The NRA, RW, and their enablers support this shit. Unbelievable. What will it take to wake them the f*ck up?!
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Responsible for the massacres in France and Africa? Or maybe the terrorists?
ellennelle
(614 posts)i am so NOT a gun freak, and wish to high heaven they did not even exist (i'm a huge jeremy diamond fan, fwiw). to my mind, there is no good argument or even excuse for their existence, except to kill the peoples of this earth and plunder their resources. oh, right; not a good reason at all.
and seek hateful revenge.
that said, it will always remain the case that a gun is an inert object. it is what folks do with them that makes them destructive.
of course, what folks do with them includes creating them in the first place.
not only does their use stem from hatred (and sorry, even hunters cannot claim to be benign; why kill animals for sport???), but their very creation and manufacture stem from hatred.
and, at heart, that is a self-hatred.
my heart goes out to the pulse victims, and all victims of this madness of hatred.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,314 posts)The guns made him hate gay people.
Angel Martin
(942 posts)Hekate
(90,489 posts)...born in the USA of American parents.
Everybody gets hyper-aware when the perp(s) turn out to be non-Christian, non-white, and the children of immigrants. Because this must be something from outside of us, The Other, and then we don't have to look at who we are. Yet they are the exception;
Who we are is a culture that worships a god of death that needs daily blood sacrifices of children, women, PoC and anybody else it turns its sights on.
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)It needs to said loudly and clearly.
We must act on the easy availability of assault type weapons.
Squinch
(50,890 posts)does nothing. They are here for a reason. Some just joined up for the specific purpose of spreading gun nut bingo arguments and to distract from any efforts to do anything about guns.
Don't engage them!
Ignore those who are supporting a civil right protected by the Constitution.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
brer cat
(24,499 posts)K&R
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)when you tombstone the invading gun trolls in this thread, please dump the long term posters espousing the same points.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Or opposing views? Are you sure you are a progressive?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
bench scientist
(1,107 posts)
Stonepounder
(4,033 posts)to discuss the gun culture in the US rationally. The absolute hysteria that greets ANY attempt at discussion of what can be done to try and do something reasonable about the epidemic of mass shootings. Someone says 'gun control' and immediately we are swamped with 'OMG thay want to take our guns away' or 'it won't work' or 'only good people with guns can stop bad people with guns' or 'if they don't have guns they will use [insert other weapon here]'.
Can't we have an intelligent, rational discussion? Can't we come up with suggestions about how to reduce this kind of violence without dissolving into name calling? If not, how are we any different from any other closed-minded group of folks?
I really don't have any answers, just questions.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)It goes on for hundreds of posts. Visit that thread, and report back on "rational discussion" of "gun control."
There is a lot of "hate" talk right here. And calls for MIRTing pro 2A DU members. Kinda puts a spin on "rational discussion."
EDIT to add: Please see posts 59, 62, 78, and 82 in THIS thread alone.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)then come talk to us. Also you need the votes. This applies to anyone calling for repeal of the 2nd. If you are not, please ignore this.
For any who think a repeal would not end in a civil war, you are delusional.
I am for stricter gun laws, but I know a ban on them is utter fantasyland unless you are ready for coast to coast warfare.
Finally, guns didnt cause this shooting. Religion, ideology, culture, and geopolitics caused this shooting.
geretogo
(1,281 posts)good reason to check one out . One gun of choice could be kept at home under lock and key for protecting
ones castle . No exceptions .
aikoaiko
(34,153 posts) 
Kimberly1990219
(24 posts)Guns need to go. Badly.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)vkkv
(3,384 posts)you from a tyrannical government then you aren't mentally FIT to OWN A GUN.
The Gub'mnt has rocket launchers, grenades, drones, lasers, soundwave devices, bombs and yes, nukes..
What've you got? An AR ?? Good luck with that, dreamer.
reign88
(64 posts)Because it seems militant Islamic groups around the world are doing just fine against our government with tech far less effective than we have.
Plus, if our own government responded with drone attacks on American soil, you don't think they'd have an issue? The argument you make takes only the first "logical" step and goes no further.
Either way, I own a pistol and a shotgun. A lot of folks where I live own that and more. There aren't shootings all the time, heck there aren't shootings at all, other than for hunting I suppose.
I'm not exactly for an easy carry allowance, but it doesn't scare me either. 99.99% of people are not an issue.
Another point, France is pretty restrictive on firearm ownership and they have a record shooting nearly three times as bad as our worst with an injured total nearly seven times greater.
There are a LOT of people in this country who own weapons that live their entire lives never having to or wanting to use them on another human being. I am way more worried about a violent ideology, of any kind, than I am of a gun in the hands of a good man or woman.
uponit7771
(90,300 posts)... mothers dog had a gun an it didn't keep them from being occupied
vkkv
(3,384 posts)collapse at the hands of citizens with firearms.
Our gov't will not break down due an overwhelming number of firearm owners revolting a tyrannical gov't.
A tyrannical gov't will have been VOTED IN, ELECTED! It will not die easily at the hands of a bunch of firearm owners, the gov't has tanks, teargas, incendiary weapons and much more. That is WHY i said it is insane to possess a firearm for the specific reason of fighting off a tyrannical gov't - it's a ridiculous idea.
To even make a comparison using "Cuba, Algeria, Indo-China, Vietnam, the Arab Spring" is surreal. That is far too complicated of politics to even go there.
Yes, we are less free due to the possibility of being shot randomly, being in the wrong place, wrong time. We are less free as we install burglar alarms on our houses and cars.
Crime, including gun crime, make us ALL LESS FREE and LESS secure - obviously.
Many Americans keep VOTING for politicians who adhere to strict, conservative social issues like the right to choose, antidrug, more prisons, less money for schools - they are voted in! That is not tyranny - that is the choice of voters in the SOUTH, especially. We are VOTING AWAY are freedoms by politicians who SCARE us into giving away our freedoms in exchange for "security". Again, these 'leaders' are voted in.
I would not own guns on the crowded coast where I previously lived even though I always thought the physics were fascinating. Now that I Live in Sierra Nevada mountains on five acres, I've purchased and learned to shoot a shotgun and rifles shoot quite well at skeet and targets.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Read:
If we are "less free," it is due to far greater power than some armed celebrity-seeker. Try extremist efforts to curb a woman's right to choose, aggressive actions toward transgender people, a political party that seems more loudly afraid of Bullies than one which does anything about them, and a flourishing corporate state which no institution wishes to challenge
Most people have guns primarily for SD, but in addition many keep them to thwart tyrrany of any sort, however unlikely. This was the stand of liberal leader Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey. By your OWN WORDS you characterize many millions of Americans "mentally unfit." Don't run for office. You won't win.
Cuba, Algeria, Indo-China, Vietnam, the Arab Spring, and others are just a few examples of how insurgencies, for ill or good, succeeded with the use of small arms against a vastly better-armed opponent. Get back to history class, but take notes instead of nodding off and "dreaming." Had we had more of that a half-century ago maybe we as a nation could have averted or at least hastened our exit from Vietnam. But by your reckoning, here we are, doomed to repeat our history.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)collapse at the hands of citizens with firearms.
Our gov't will not break down due an overwhelming number of firearm owners revolting a tyrannical gov't.
A tyrannical gov't will have been VOTED IN, ELECTED! It will not die easily at the hands of a bunch of firearm owners, the gov't has tanks, teargas, incendiary weapons and much more. That is WHY i said it is insane to possess a firearm for the specific reason of fighting off a tyrannical gov't - it's a ridiculous idea.
To even make a comparison using "Cuba, Algeria, Indo-China, Vietnam, the Arab Spring" is surreal. That is far too complicated of politics to even go there.
Yes, we are less free due to the possibility of being shot randomly, being in the wrong place, wrong time. We are less free as we install burglar alarms on our houses and cars.
Crime, including gun crime, make us ALL LESS FREE and LESS secure - obviously.
Many Americans keep VOTING for politicians who adhere to strict, conservative social issues like the right to choose, antidrug, more prisons, less money for schools - they are voted in! That is not tyranny - that is the choice of voters in the SOUTH, especially. We are VOTING AWAY are freedoms by politicians who SCARE us into giving away our freedoms in exchange for "security". Again, these 'leaders' are voted in.
I would not own guns on the crowded coast where I previously lived even though I always thought the physics were fascinating. Now that I Live in Sierra Nevada mountains on five acres, I've purchased and learned to shoot a shotgun and rifles shoot quite well at skeet and targets.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)You call that surreal. Yet it is the blanket ignorance of this fact which underwrites the U.S.'s failed attempts to defeat insurrections. Frankly, it is this inorance which begat Vietnam, yet here I am on a liberal/progressive web site making an argument which was common in the 60s, 70s, 80s and on up. Liberals seem to dump their historical lessons faster than an old Windows system. No wonder we get into so many wars.
I probably would agree with you about the policies and extremist ideologies "voted in," though the reason has probably less to do with the superior numbers of these voters, and more to do with an opposition which is less than "surreal," it seems to have so little presence as to not register on many "real" gauges.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)There are no comparisons to be made with those examples.
Unless American people are threatened by extreme hardships like famine, widespread torture or worse -Americans will never actually revolt. As long as most Americans have okay low wage jobs controlled by mega-corporations, their iPhone works okay, Chicken Nuggets are still plentiful and even still buried in debt, there will not be any kind of "revolution". Gun owners like the fantasy, but it's not going to happen. Corporations and out gov't will bend just enough to keep the people from any tipping point.
We lost in Vietnam because we as a nation chose not to SUSTAIN THE WAR! A good choice btw.. That was the reason we got out. Too many voters were against it. Haven't you read that? Surely you knew that.. It also didn't help that we came from across the Pacific, too.
The South nearly won the Civil War only because both sides were comparably armed and both sides lived on this continent. Give one side better weapons and the other would have lost.
Native Americans could not beat European invaders mostly because of weapons, sure diseases worked against them, but it was the more powerful weapons. Native Americans could not stop the U.S. forces.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)But our predilection to get involved with other nations conflicts to somehow make it better for "balance of power," "Containment," "Defend our interests," etc., is predicated on our superior armaments and the latest "Shock & Awe." Those conflicts are settled by cruisers, carriers, ICBMs, M1 Abrams, and B-52s. They are settled by fighters with small arms and other toteable equipment.
Native Americans were defeated by other reasons than weapons, which were on a par with U.S. troops, and sometimes better. But the point you are missing is that American regular forces when facing irregulars are not assured of victory. And here we are, still in Iraq and environs. I don't know of any force, domestic or foreign, who would want to deal with a decent network of home-grown militia equipped with contemporary weapons.
Yeah, the Vietnam was was unpopular politically. But war is politics in the extreme, and a victory is a victory.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)- then they are not mentally fit to own guns.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
jmg257
(11,996 posts)That really own guns to fight the govt?
Just curious.
Laha
(407 posts)I'm usually just a silent lurker, but seeing people here defend guns now, of all times, has got me so angry that I've been arguing on the boards.
Thank you for speaking for me now.
calimary
(81,040 posts)I like to refer to assault rifles as Massacre Machines. That's what they ARE. Why such murder tools are so easily available to anybody and everybody is just beyond me.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)These guns need to be banned from Vermont to California.
Nobel_Twaddle_III
(323 posts)You do not shoot down 103 people without the hate.
A gun was the tool used, but without a gun, a bomb, poison, gas, fire....other tools would have been used to satisfy the hate...
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)jalan48
(13,833 posts)Indydem
(2,642 posts)There is no popular support for your fantasy.
If you passed the law, it would likely be struck down by SCOTUS.
So repeal the 2A, or quit with the daydreaming.
jalan48
(13,833 posts)MisterFred
(525 posts)PLENTY of precedent for banning automatics (and semi-automatics). Same reason the government can ban shoulder-launched surface to air missiles.
DUH!
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Scores of people.
IOW - It's the guns.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Because the NRA OWNS the Congress and the Senate. Get rid of the legal bribery, and maybe we might get some small change, but until then, don't expect anything. ESPECIALLY from this congress.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)problem are drooling right-wing nut jobs.
This coming from a gun-owner (myself).
Anybody who is one of these trollish gun-defenders, please post here so I can put you on ignore.
No liberal/progressive/Democrat uses NRA/RWNJ talking points. None.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)to love their guns and that's not going to change overnight.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)the boston marathon massacre was done without guns
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Terrorists Are Turning To Guns More Often In U.S. Attacks
“…In the coming days, there will be a lot of discussion about terrorism and mass shootings and the relationship between these categories. And it’s growing harder to separate them: Terror attacks in the U.S. increasingly involve guns….”
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/terrorists-are-turning-to-guns-more-often-in-u-s-attacks/
Response to TygrBright (Original post)
Post removed
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
DemoTex
(25,387 posts)William Faulkner in Absalom, Absalom!
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Guns are used by mass murders in the USA because they are available. Make nobmistake: IF GUNS WERE SOMEHOW BANNED, MASS MURDERERS WOULD USE THE NEXT EASIEST MEANS AVAILABLE TO KILL THEIR VICTIMS.... KNIVES.... BOMBS.... GRENADES..... STICKS..... ROCKS. Somebody mentioned the Hutus and Tutsies, who killed millions with knives and hatchets.
The problem is not the guns, and fixation on GUNZ GUNZ GUNZ is (IMO) an insult to the victims. BLAME THE GODDAM BIGOTTED FUCKWIT KILLER, NOT THE INANIMATE OBJECT. I know, this requires more thought, but its the only way well put a dent in this.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)This is a lousy argument. Guns make it very easy for someone to kill. All you do is point the damn thing at someone, and pull the little trigger. A lot easier than using any of the other means that you mentioned.
gopiscrap
(23,724 posts)lancer78
(1,495 posts)with mass shootings because of our easy access to guns, please explain these statistics.
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/
sarae
(3,284 posts)mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)"well regulated".
It is time for regulations that are in tune with the dangerous 21st century.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Clearly, the one good guy with a gun (LEO) outside the front door was not enough against the bad guy with an Ak-15. It took the SWAT TEAM and "sustained" fire to take this madman down. I am sure these officers had a lot of training, protective gear, and arms, far more than any ordinary citizen would have. Did anyone see the picture of the helmet with the bullet hole in it that saved one ARMED officer's life? Maybe all armed bar patrons need to wear helmets too? Walk around with your OWN Ak-15, Citizens!
It should be very interesting to see Florida Legislators reaction to this. They have been trying for years to pass legislation allowing open carry. Would that have stopped Mateen if an armed LEO at the door didn't? I am sure many will call for an end to Gun Free Zones, again. The solution is always MORE guns. Florida legislator tried to pass a bill allowing Teachers to carry in schools after Sandy Hook. Did it pass? No, because Teachers, and PARENTS, were outraged over that.
So tell me what the likes of Omar Mateen, Adam Lanza, Dylan Roof had in common aside from angry, young, white males? A Weapon of Mass Destruction, which should be BANNED.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Not only that, but sometime in the near future, some bureaucrat will be using statistics derived from this to raise money to support their position for either side.
The possibility and the number tell me i have much higher chance of suffering and dying from many other maladies but nothing sells better when the news gets to lead off with blood and guts. Perhaps even the blood and guts just tells us more about ourselves and our addictions to all things social
My best guess is stay away from other Humans, it's your best chance at living a even longer life*
*p.s. Are you sure you want to live a longer life 
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)ANY arms. I want a shoulder mounted, laser guided, nuclear rocket and launcher, because the 2nd amendment says that I have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify what arms, it just says "arms."
If we only allowed people to have the "arms" that existed when the 2nd amendment was written, perhaps there wouldn't be this sort of problem. It takes a bit of time to reload a flintlock! And then imaging trying to kill 49 people with a flintlock! And don't think of carrying around 49 of them already loaded, that would just be quite a task!
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Scientists don't quite know yet, but there turns to be point in our actual fragile ecosystem that carbon released by us will reach a tipping point in the near future. When that point is reached and the globe unable to keep that comfortable equilibrium that much of life on earth is accustomed to, then most of it will die
With that in hand we can become the real assholes we only thought we could be, overachieving underachievers
Tipping Points - the Facts
When the temperature gets high enough to cause forests to give up their CO2 rather than sequest it, then every tonne of gas given up to the air increases the temperature and causes even more gas to be given up. This is a tipping point - an irreversible moment when the dreaded feedback loop begins.
This is now the central issue for the scientific community: have humans already have gone too far, and may we now be helpless to stop abrupt and runaway global warming.
http://www.planetextinction.com/index.html
rdking647
(5,113 posts)restrict magazines greater than 15 rounds they same way we restrict silencers and machine guns.
require an NFA permit.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)That would cost me something in ballpark of $20,000.
Pass.
rdking647
(5,113 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)You see I am a gundamentalist ammosexual in the off season, who has poor eyesight. I need those magazines to get one deer, and also to fondle in the off season.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)Hardly unusual.
PJMcK
(21,984 posts)High capacity, rapid-fire weaponry has no use for sport. They are designed to be used by the military to provide over-whelming force. Does anyone need that level of force to shoot a deer? Anyway, where's the sport in that? The target hasn't a chance so it isn't "sport."
It's appalling that the GOP blocked legislation that would have prevented Mateen the Hateful from obtaining any guns.
Our nation has lost its mind on so many obvious issues. If 90% of Americans support meaningful gun control laws, then our so-called representative government has failed us once again.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)ALL Guns should be computer chipped to only operate in legally designated areas, and able to be overridden by legal authority. All ammunition must be micro-stamped. All POLICE weapons should be fitted with iSight type cameras and audio. All guns should have a built in “find my gun” feature to disable and recover lost/stolen guns. It is way past time for a 700 year old technology to advance to the 21st century.
In addition:
Mandatory comprehensive background checks before guns are sold. Mandatory 6 month waiting period to purchase. All guns and ammunition should be required to be stored in/with approved gun safes or gun/trigger locks at home.
No minors under 16 should be allowed to own or carry/handle a gun.
Including:
* National buy back program of all civilian non chipped modern guns. (paid for by gun makers)
* $50K fine for possessing working non chipped modern guns.
* $50K reward for reporting owners of working non chipped modern guns.
* Antique guns cannot be loaded or used in public space.
* Mandatory liability insurance for gun ownership.
Help stop NRA=ISIS.
hunter
(38,299 posts)Anyone who owns weapons like this is a potential terrorist.
It's not a normal desire to own weapons that have no other purpose but to kill and maim people quickly.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I want to fondle a shoulder mounted, laser guided rocket launcher, because as arms, the second amendment says that I should be able to own them. After all, doesn't every gundamentalist ammosexual want at least a couple?
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)You don't think murderous people would go on a stabbing spree? Or set people on fire? Throw acid? They use the tools that come to hand and are happy to improvise if they must.
The base problem is the eagerness to kill in the name of god. Religious radicalization. Solve that and you'll save more lives than any gun prohibition scheme ever could.
niyad
(112,947 posts)niyad
(112,947 posts)Elmergantry
(884 posts)If you dont like them, dont get one.
Night Watchman
(743 posts)But you should have gone Full Carville, i.e., It's The Guns, Stupid! 
CrispyQ
(36,410 posts)Lisa Wade, PhD on June 12, 2016
https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2016/06/12/36-hours-four-violent-men-and-one-american-ideology/
snip...
We wake up this morning to the news of the deadliest civilian mass shooting in American history. We will be sad about this for a while and we will wring our hands feeling helpless. And we should be sad and gnash our teeth because it is a senseless tragedy.
In the meantime, many of us will forget to think and talk about Brock Turner’s crime and his “summer vacation” jail sentence: three months for the vile sexual assault of an unconscious woman. One outrage replaces another and we naturally and understandably move on, as if these two crimes are unrelated. They’re not.
Brock Turner was an All-American boy — demographically and, literally, by athletic title — and what he did to his victim was All-American, too, confirmed by decades of research to be tied closely to a sense of male superiority and entitlement. I study sex on campus and sexual violence is perpetrated disproportionately by high status men — athletes and fraternity members — who are strongly invested in their identities as men.
Omar Mateen’s crime is tied to this sort of masculinity, too. Mateen’s father has already spoken to the media, revealing that his son had previously been angered by the sight of two men kissing. Anti-gay hate crimes, like violence against women (Mateen also reportedly beat his ex-wife), are tied closely to rigid and hierarchical ideas about masculinity. Mass murders have become a distinctly American way for men to defend that hierarchy. As the sociologists Tristan Bridges and Tara Leigh Tober write:
This type of rampage violence happens more in the United States of America than anywhere else… Gun control is a significant part of the problem. But, gun control is only a partial explanation for mass shootings in the United States. Mass shootings are also almost universally committed by men. So, this is not just an American problem; it’s a problem related to American masculinity and to the ways American men use guns.
American masculinity, as defined by our popular culture, is toxic. To all you parents who are raising decent human beings in this cesspool of a culture we've created, hats off to you.
kentuck
(111,035 posts)That permit the guns to be in the hands of sick people.
It is politicians that are scared to death of the NRA and refuse to do anything to stop the killing of our citizens.
moondust
(19,954 posts)But once you give Joe Schmoe the power of life or death over anything that comes near him at the mere squeeze of a finger, you'll have a tough time taking that kind of power away from him.
I suspect the 2nd Amendment had a lot to do with slavery. Without guns to keep them under control from a bullet's reach, the slaves are going to split. Plus the one percenters and settlers of the day out on the frontier couldn't really depend on police to quickly get there on horseback to defend them and their property from robbers and natives and...disgruntled slaves. Some of that probably applies even today as one percenters don't want to have to depend on police to defend them and their property; if THEY wanted the 2nd Amendment repealed or restricted, it would probably happen.
There is no way to predict with certainty who is going to snap or when or what they will do when that happens. Maybe the best you can do is make it difficult for anybody who does snap to get their hands on the tools of death and destruction, which implies greatly reducing the numbers of those tools in general circulation. That would probably take decades in the U.S. even with incentive programs.
A melting pot like the U.S. is probably more prone to violence due to the diversity, racism, and conflict between groups--often stoked and exploited by contemptible politicians; the worst kind of place to widely disseminate the tools of death and destruction.
These countries with historically more homogeneous populations and less internal conflict seem to have figured it out. I think I like Italy's "need-to-own" approach. Of course keeping the slaves in line is no longer a valid excuse. 
