Is the American 2nd Amendment a major contributor to mass shootings in the United States?


> Because the right to bear arms applies to everything from sword to gun. Anything and everything can be used as a weapon to kill and inflict massive damage. A good example is a car that was recently driven in a parade, killing 6 people and injuring more than 50.

OK. Just about anything can be used to kill – even a bag of cotton balls if it is pushed down someone’s throat to the point that their airways are blocked and they are choking. But that’s not the point.

You can’t seriously argue that it isn’t much easier to kill with a gun, especially a semi-automatic, and ranged to start. A madman wielding a sword may be able to kill multiple people before being overpowered, but putting an AR-15 with 30 rounds in the same mad hands, and the potential death rate is multiplied by ten.

I understand your point on the recent tragedy where an idiot drove a car through a parade and killed people in America, but it doesn’t compare to gun crime year after year.

If nothing changes and the Second Amendment is not revised to adapt to modern times and living conditions, then when and how can gun violence end?

Making guns even more readily available than they already are so that people can defend themselves only exacerbates the problem, so simple logic dictates that taking guns off the streets and regulations require them. people to justify having obtained (and continue to keep) firearms makes perfect sense. Wouldn’t you say that would be a big step in the right direction?

In other words, revisit the Second Amendment and bring it back to 21st century life.

> My son or daughter could easily take a knife to school to inflict pain or use a handy pair of scissors to kill students who bullied them.

No doubt, but their ability to kill multiple children instead of injuring a few would be severely restricted, and that’s the point. A knife or a pair of scissors can kill, yes. The same goes for a fork, but none of those things are designed for that purpose.

A firearm, on the other hand, is specially designed for this purpose. Kill and maim as quickly and efficiently as possible. It makes sense to have strict laws on their availability, not only for children but also for the general American population. Firearms have no logical place in society.

> People are the cause and not the Second Amendment.

But that’s only half the story, Dan.

Of course, it’s the people who pull the trigger, but it’s the Second Amendment that empowers them to get lethal weapons in the first place. It’s a vicious cycle and given that you can’t monitor people who will do harm 24/7, it logically follows that the ease of gun availability needs to be addressed. How do you start doing this? By re-examining the necessity and value of the Second Amendment.

It is high time that this amendment was revised or removed from the US constitution entirely in my opinion. Remove and severely restrict the ability of people to obtain guns and the person (gun related) problem resolves itself. At a minimum, the people who slaughter other people in annual mass shootings no longer have easy access to the weapons they need to cause the carnage you have to live with every year.

> The anarchist cookbook protected by the First Amendment details how to make a simple pipe bomb. Also, don’t forget that in chemistry lessons you can learn how to make a simple bomb.

Of course, the information can also be found on the Internet. But how many times have you heard of children being slaughtered in school because someone used a homemade bomb? Now, how many times have you heard of mass shootings resulting in the slaughter of children?

> Your argument is therefore very questionable with regard to firearms that kill people.

On the contrary, I have just shown you why it is your argument which fails the logical test and is irrelevant.

My arguments are not speculations like yours are Dan. They are based on historical facts. However, your arguments only serve to try to distract from the real problem and its cause, and that is the easy availability of guns. Cause and effect protection afforded by a now obsolete Second Amendment.

> So what’s worse with guns or obesity?

Fire arms. Because an obese person harms himself mainly by his own choice. A gun, on the other hand, hurts others. But you’re just trying to turn away from the real problem again.

This discussion is not about how many Americans die and what. This is the value and worth of an outdated Second Amendment that has a direct cause and effect on the number of annual gun-related deaths in America. Remove this second modification protection and the availability of firearms is immediately reduced. Combine that with a buy-back program to get guns off the streets, and America may finally start to make progress in stopping the mass shootings.

This is a logic that cannot be disputed, and countries (such as Australia) have already shown that such measures are both effective and achievable.

Published by achzone, today, 12:53 am.


About Author

Comments are closed.