pulse shooting in orlando, FL

[Neo Emolga]

It's shocking to think that anyone could harbour so much hate for a group of people that they actively attempt to destroy them. The fact that this happened during Pride is the worst part, as it's a time LGBT+ people should be embracing who they are, not living in fear. Normally I feel quite removed from mass murders (even ones in familiar places, like Paris) but this one really hit home.

From a UK perspective, where guns are very strictly regulated, the only thing I can blame it on are the guns. I've seen people claiming that they'd "find a way to kill regardless", but the fact is that having no access to powerful weapons really limits the damage a person can do. The US has 10.5 deaths per 100,000 due to guns (including accidents and suicides) compared to Canada's 2.0 and UK's 0.2, yet the problem is denied over and over.

It reminds me of an Onion article headline from a few years back. "‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens". While the US is far from the worst for gun crime/death in the world, it's definitely the worst among developed countries.

It's not right to say "the only thing I can blame it on are the guns" because there's several factors at stake here. Owning a gun will not automatically drive someone to go shooting up everyone in town. Trust me, I know from personal experience and I try to be EXTREMELY careful with loading a gun with live ammunition, always be aware of what it's pointing at, and making sure that safety stays on until it's ready to fire down range. Most people around PXR know me quite well and they know I'm not a nutcase that would go shooting up innocent people. Like I said before, a gun for home protection is like a fire extinguisher. You don't get one hoping you have to use it, but it's there in case of an emergency. Sorry, but I just don't trust a 10-15 minute police response time with my life (and that's even if you can get to the phone and use it).

There were definitely mental and bigotry issues here. And there were radical Islamic issues in addition to that (at least from what I read). The guns were the means of the crime, I will not deny that, but they do NOT reflect the thoughts that were running through this guy's head or his background. It takes a LOT of deranged mental thinking to suddenly decide you're going to take those firearms, pack up enough ammo, drive all the way to the nightclub, and not ONCE along the way stop and think about how what you're about to do is totally wrong and just outright monstrous. That is where your mental issue lies. He could have loaded that car up with explosives, fire bombs, poisonous gas bombs, or whatnot and still could have done just as much damage.

Second, those statistics can't really be counted because for one, correlation does not equal causation, and two, you need to analyze WHY the gun was used in those cases, and if you're only looking at numbers, you're not getting the whole picture. A person who commits suicide with a gun could have jumped off a bridge or dive in front of an oncoming train instead. Meanwhile, a gun accident is caused by negligence, misuse, and lack of education, which is a fatal outcome possible with many other machines and tools like cars, power tools, and things that could involve fire, electricity, and chemicals.

id rather not turn this into an argument about gun control because i feel that rather detracts from the issue at hand, which is the homophobia that caused this in the first place. but i will say that in this particular case, the gunman owned his gun legally and was in fact a security worker. the majority of gunmen in mass shootings acquired their guns legally, too. the argument that "theyll do it anyway!" is unfounded, i feel, when the fact remains that a lack of strict gun control allowed these particular men -- the men who commit these horrible monstrosities -- to acquire the weapons they used to kill women, people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and so on. if mass shootings were primarily done by people who had illegally obtained their weapons then i would see where people are coming from, but statistically speaking thats not the case, and in countries with strict gun control these mass shootings simply do not happen or happen significantly less often.

i guess my point here is i dont care if you like your guns and your outdated government-sanctioned document that gives you the right to own them. they are weapons of murder with no other purpose. the very weapon you own or could easily and lawfully acquire was used to kill 50 people like me last night. this was not because the gunman was a "psychopath" or "crazed" or anything similar; mental illness is not the issue and was not what motivated him to do this. he was bigoted, and hateful, and angry, and happened to own a gun, which was legally given to him, and he knew where to go to find a large number of the type of people he hated, because the club which was attacked was one of the most popular in the orlando area and represented the history of the queer community there.

pretty much anyone can purchase a gun in this country. which means that pretty much anyone, inspired by this event, could easily walk into the same clubs that i frequent and shoot me or anyone i know. nothing is stopping them if theyre motivated by enough hatred. i live 30 minutes away from aurora, CO, where another mass shooting occurred not too long ago; its not even an unreasonable fear to have. so i ask you: why would you want to fight for the right for them to do that with so little trouble? why not make that a little more difficult for men so bigoted and violent? all i hear is that you like your guns too much to acknowledge that making weapons like this easily accessible makes mass violence more accessible, too.

thats all i have to say on the matter of guns.

Eh, don't mind me saying, but I don't know why you would say you don't want it to turn into an argument about gun control, but then write three paragraphs exactly about that. I don't agree with your statements, hence why I feel this rebuttal is necessary...

Strict gun control may lead to less shootings, but not necessarily less murder (Again, correlation ≠ causation). Case in point, the bombings in France, Belgium, Turkey, and 9/11 all didn't involve the killing of innocent people with firearms. Omar could have used a bomb, arson, or poison as an alternative (all of which can be done with household items), which is why I'm saying the mental and murderous intent issue behind this incident is way more of a factor than the guns. Your argument seems to bend toward the bias against guns and makes it sound like anger + guns will always equal mass shootings. I have guns. I have been angry. Have I gone out and shot people because of it? Heck no. Anger is only temporary, and I know this. It fades off and I, like many other gun owners that experience this, know WAY better than to use a weapon out of anger or hate. The ones that can't do this and have acted out of anger or hate are definitely the kinds of people that shouldn't have guns. Hence, why we don't let anyone with criminal records, mental issues, or violent backgrounds get their hands on a firearm.

And please, please, please don't say the constitution is an "outdated government-sanctioned document." Ugh, reading that just made me cringe, because that's like saying the right to free speech, freedom of press, and religion is outdated also, along with the things that give us equal rights, rights to vote, and so on. Also, you're quite wrong in saying that "pretty much anyone can purchase a gun in this country." Heh, heck no. In NJ, you have to go through quite a heck of a background verification process and slipping up on just one point (mental issues, criminal records, etc...) will stop you from getting one. I'm not sure what is involved in other states, but there are laws in place to some degree. As long as the laws are reasonable, I'm fine with complying with them, but there are anti-gun activists that would either want them to get to the point of being completely unreasonable (which some gun laws have gotten to that point in some cases) or just ban them altogether.

Instead of being anti-gun, be pro gun education. I'm not asking you to buy one, join the NRA, and go all crazy for them, but at least please agree with me that instead of relying on media to educate people about guns, people should be made more aware of the nature of guns, what owning one entails, safety precautions, and how to prevent misuse (and yes, I did take training classes before owning any guns myself). It may not prevent all incidents, but if it prevents at least some, then it was all worth it.

[starmie]

@Neo Emolga

i do mind you saying, yes. my purpose in engaging the subject was that you had already tried to shift the focus of this discussion towards it, so i felt the need to address the point at least before, i had hoped, setting it aside. and while frankly i believe that you are not in a position right now -- as someone who is personally unaffected by this massacre, as (i presume) a cisgender and heterosexual man -- to argue about guns in the light of this event, i had a fair bit of perspective to contribute, which i now feel you have not seriously attempted to consider. honestly, how dare you attempt to twist this into defense of a murder weapon that has been used to great effect and which i personally must live in fear of now, anywhere i go that might advertise my identity, just because you feel entitled to it? how absolutely dare you? heres the difference between those bombs and guns: bombs are illegal, and guns, which are still consistently used to kill minorities like myself, are not. you get caught with a bomb, youre in trouble. you get caught with a legally-acquired gun, especially in a concealed carry state, and thats apparently just fine, despite its destructive capacity which has been proven time and time again. that terrifies me.

secondly, how dare you attempt to insinuate that mental illness is the cause? i am mentally ill. i am also certified as a psychologist. so forgive me for being angered that you continue to talk about whatever mental disturbance you believe this man might have felt, when he was very clearly driven instead by hatred, by intolerance. by conflating the two, you are doing exactly what the media, what systemic and deeply-ingrained prejudice, wants you to do. these types of attacks are blamed on the mentally ill, on muslims, on any marginalized community who seems like an easy target, to draw away from this prejudice which drives the attacks. you probably have internalized quite a bit of this prejudice, whether you would act on it or not. perhaps this is why you feel the need to bring up mental illness and islam, when that is not the issue at hand. discussing prejudices that you may have perpetuated or internalized in some way, shape, or form can be quite uncomfortable. as it should be. these are not comfortable topics. but they are real. do not deflect.

thirdly, are you suggesting that gun education might have stopped this attack? that this man who had legally acquired a gun and, as i understand it, owned it as part of his job and therefore was quite educated about its use, would not have used it the same way if only he had been educated?

i am furious. i am genuinely livid that you are taking a tragedy and trying to argue that well, yes, this was quite bad wasnt it, but guns are still alright as long as ~crazy people~ dont get their hands on them! glad thats not me!

and for the record, i stand by my earlier statement about the constitution being outdated. rights are great! of course they are. but you know when the amendment about the right to bear arms was written? 1791. i happen to feel that in the time that has passed since then, the political and social climate is maybe a little different, and the "arms" in question arent muskets and swords anymore. they are advanced machines with the capacity to do, as one has done just last night, incredible damage to large amounts of people (over 100 dead and injured) in a very short amount of time (3 hours). despite your confidence in the system which you feel filters out anyone who might put these weapons to unsavory use, this still happens. the ready availability of these things will never bring me comfort, or in fact anything short of intense fear. if you cannot understand this, then you are lucky. you are not someone who has to worry that you will be killed just for your identity, and therefore it must be very easy to defend your guns, knowing they wont be turned on you.

i refuse to continue this any further, although i felt that i had to respond before taking some time to myself, because while i am full of anger and i am upset, i was too guilty thinking of those who can no longer speak in their own defense to remain quiet myself. now i need to take a break. i need to mourn without feeling like i must defend my indignation when i see people like you taking advantage of this incident for your own agenda.

respond to this if you want to, but i wont be reading it for a while. i need to unplug. i am tired.

[Noblejanobii]

Sorry, but I just don't trust a 10-15 minute police response time with my life (and that's even if you can get to the phone and use it).

Statistically speaking, in the USA, you can get a pizza to your house faster than a first responder so I feel this is a justified distrust.

Case in point, the bombings in France, Belgium, Turkey, and 9/11 all didn't involve the killing of innocent people with firearms.

Not trying to null your point here since I agree with you but the bombings in Paris actually did have some firearm involvement. If I recall correctly, a guy also shot up a cafe near the bombing sites, but that was the only one I think.

And please, please, please don't say the constitution is an "outdated government-sanctioned document." Ugh, reading that just made me cringe, because that's like saying the right to free speech, freedom of press, and religion is outdated also, along with the things that give us equal rights, rights to vote, and so on.

Yeah, that's kind of calling the profession I want to go into pointless and I take offense to that since politics is something I enjoy. Plus, you know, it's kind of what gives you the right to make your rant in the first place.

Also, you're quite wrong in saying that "pretty much anyone can purchase a gun in this country." Heh, heck no. In NJ, you have to go through quite a heck of a background verification process and slipping up on just one point (mental issues, criminal records, etc...) will stop you from getting one. I'm not sure what is involved in other states, but there are laws in place to some degree. As long as the laws are reasonable, I'm fine with complying with them, but there are anti-gun activists that would either want them to get to the point of being completely unreasonable (which some gun laws have gotten to that point in some cases) or just ban them altogether.

I think starmie was referring to states like mine, where firearms are quite accessible. Note, don't hold me to this since firearm laws change VERY frequently in my state and given what happened literally a year ago, I wouldn't be surprised if this had changed since then. However, last I checked, the only permit required to be held by a citizen of South Carolina when it comes to a rifle, shotgun, or handgun is a permit to carry a handgun. We don't require a permit to purchase one, we don't require registration of them, and we don't require licensing of them. HOWEVER, you have to be a resident of the state or active in the military to purchase a firearm, and in addition to that there are several tests you must be run through before you can get one. I will now run myself through these tests to show you kind of how this works. There are four things that would prevent you from owning a handgun in my state. First, you can't have been convicted of a crime of violence. I'm not sure how long this goes on for because I don't know the exact text of the law, but the point still stands. Since I haven't, I pass that mark. Second, "Any person who is a member of a subversive organization, fugitive from justice, habitual drunkard or drug addict or who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent". Well I don't think I'm any of those, so check there. Third, "Any person who had been adjudged unfit to carry or possess a handgun by an order of a circuit or county court judge." Again, don't think I qualify here, so check there. Lastly, "any person under twenty-one". Oh well looky there, I'm under twenty-one. Means I can't legally own a gun. In fact, the only time I'm actually allowed to legally use one is in specified locations where the person must be over sixteen years of age and be under the supervision of someone that meets all of the qualifications above as well as is my guardian or parent. It's not the most thorough system but they crack down on it pretty hard in my area.

@starmie

Not to be rude or anything but I think you kind of missed the whole point of his argument. So uh... yeah.

[Neo Emolga]

@Neo Emolga

i do mind you saying, yes. my purpose in engaging the subject was that you had already tried to shift the focus of this discussion towards it, so i felt the need to address the point at least before, i had hoped, setting it aside. and while frankly i believe that you are not in a position right now -- as someone who is personally unaffected by this massacre, as (i presume) a cisgender and heterosexual man -- to argue about guns in the light of this event, i had a fair bit of perspective to contribute, which i now feel you have not seriously attempted to consider. honestly, how dare you attempt to twist this into defense of a murder weapon that has been used to great effect and which i personally must live in fear of now, anywhere i go that might advertise my identity, just because you feel entitled to it? how absolutely dare you? heres the difference between those bombs and guns: bombs are illegal, and guns, which are still consistently used to kill minorities like myself, are not. you get caught with a bomb, youre in trouble. you get caught with a legally-acquired gun, especially in a concealed carry state, and thats apparently just fine, despite its destructive capacity which has been proven time and time again. that terrifies me.

Here's the thing. I'm not the kind that would just let someone drop a lot of things I don't agree with and then state it like there can be no rebuttal against it, as if your say is final, because there are missing pieces that need to be brought to the discussion here.

I want to get to the point of at least you saying "I understand, even though I don't feel the same way." That's fine. What I'm seeing instead seems more like an impulsive reaction fed by bias that is now targeting me for "defending a murder weapon." I'm not defending Omar's actions AT ALL. The way he used that AR-15 was absolutely deplorable and I'm sure the people that were behind the manufacturing and sale of that particular rifle he used never thought it would be used in this way.

The difference here is you're against what was used versus my point on how it was used. I'm trying to get to the point where you can at least agree with me that if a firearm is used responsibly, with maturity, and respect, it will not cause harm to innocent people. I understand that guns aren't for everyone, and if you never want to touch one, I totally get that and wouldn't think less of anyone sharing those same feelings (prior to training, I felt the same way). What I would like in return is the understanding that there are reasons why people like myself purchase a firearm (like home protection, range practice, and sporting like plinking or clay pigeon shooting) and that our intentions are not to hurt innocent people or destroy property.

secondly, how dare you attempt to insinuate that mental illness is the cause? i am mentally ill. i am also certified as a psychologist. so forgive me for being angered that you continue to talk about whatever mental disturbance you believe this man might have felt, when he was very clearly driven instead by hatred, by intolerance. by conflating the two, you are doing exactly what the media, what systemic and deeply-ingrained prejudice, wants you to do. these types of attacks are blamed on the mentally ill, on muslims, on any marginalized community who seems like an easy target, to draw away from this prejudice which drives the attacks. you probably have internalized quite a bit of this prejudice, whether you would act on it or not. perhaps this is why you feel the need to bring up mental illness and islam, when that is not the issue at hand. discussing prejudices that you may have perpetuated or internalized in some way, shape, or form can be quite uncomfortable. as it should be. these are not comfortable topics. but they are real. do not deflect.

Mental illness and Islamic extremism could potentially be the cause. It has been the cause in the past, but I don't know for sure, I'm stating them as plausible factors based on what I read (and if they're not the case, then I blame the article writers for their posting of wrong information). We won't truly know for sure until further investigation is performed. Obviously there was hate and prejudice involved, so at least we agree on that. However, we can't dive into Omar's mind to grasp what exactly was going through his head prior to and during the incident.

thirdly, are you suggesting that gun education might have stopped this attack? that this man who had legally acquired a gun and, as i understand it, owned it as part of his job and therefore was quite educated about its use, would not have used it the same way if only he had been educated?

Stop this particular attack, highly unlikely, as this was definitely an ethical issue case. But in relation to preventing fatalities caused by gun accidents (a point brought up before), yes.

i am furious. i am genuinely livid that you are taking a tragedy and trying to argue that well, yes, this was quite bad wasnt it, but guns are still alright as long as ~crazy people~ dont get their hands on them! glad thats not me!

You're twisting my words around and I wish you wouldn't do that. There's a lot more at stake than just "crazy people" getting their hands on guns. There are other components to this case that need to be brought up, hence what I am doing now.

The points I'm targeting are the responses that stated guns were solely responsible for the attack, and my points on that discussion were already covered. That was the issue I was targeting specifically. I was not trying to impose any statement that insinuated I didn't think this was as tragic as how other people felt about it. I'll say it again, this incident was a horrendous massacre and a deplorable loss of human life that never should have happened.

and for the record, i stand by my earlier statement about the constitution being outdated. rights are great! of course they are. but you know when the amendment about the right to bear arms was written? 1791. i happen to feel that in the time that has passed since then, the political and social climate is maybe a little different, and the "arms" in question arent muskets and swords anymore. they are advanced machines with the capacity to do, as one has done just last night, incredible damage to large amounts of people (over 100 dead and injured) in a very short amount of time (3 hours). despite your confidence in the system which you feel filters out anyone who might put these weapons to unsavory use, this still happens. the ready availability of these things will never bring me comfort, or in fact anything short of intense fear. if you cannot understand this, then you are lucky. you are not someone who has to worry that you will be killed just for your identity, and therefore it must be very easy to defend your guns, knowing they wont be turned on you.

I'm not sure what kind of statement you're trying to make here. The US Constitution is based on a foundation that was created during the creation of this country. By saying "it's outdated," do you mean the entire thing, or just the second amendment? If you're targeting specifically the second amendment, then say so, but your statement implies the whole US Constitution has issues.

Two things cause fear. Lack of preparation and lack of knowledge. I used to not even want to touch guns, but that was before I was encouraged to try a training class and better educate myself. I did, and now I have both the knowledge and preparation to use certain guns (not all of them, obviously), and as a result, I don't feel as intimidated about them. Would I still fear a gun being used against me? Absolutely, everyone would, but even in a case like that, knowledge of the firearm would help me in cases where I might have to defend myself against an attacker, or do something to their firearm to disable it (such as removing a specific component that would render it incapable of firing).

Also, contrary to your feelings, anyone and everyone has at one point been targeted for something they identify with, whether it's their race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or something they believe in. I'm definitely no exception. The levels of violence we face depends on how far their opposition is willing to take their opinions. In certain situations, I could have been killed for my demographics/beliefs had I been somewhere else at another time.

i refuse to continue this any further, although i felt that i had to respond before taking some time to myself, because while i am full of anger and i am upset, i was too guilty thinking of those who can no longer speak in their own defense to remain quiet myself. now i need to take a break. i need to mourn without feeling like i must defend my indignation when i see people like you taking advantage of this incident for your own agenda.

respond to this if you want to, but i wont be reading it for a while. i need to unplug. i am tired.

Understandable, I'm not expecting you to respond to this, but I strongly believe you are making wrongful assumptions about my position on this incident and I am merely trying to inform you otherwise as someone who has handled firearms before and has gone through the process of legally obtaining one. This incident disgusts me and it never should have happened, but I believe we, as people, need to step back, carefully examine the causation, and then take appropriate corrective action.

To close it all off in a one last sentence summary, this is all I'm trying to say.

Not all gun owners are like Omar and not all guns are used for these kinds of destructive, murderous intentions.

If you can at least agree with me there, then we're all good.

[Daughter of Mew]

It's not right to say "the only thing I can blame it on are the guns" because there's several factors at stake here. Owning a gun will not automatically drive someone to go shooting up everyone in town. Trust me, I know from personal experience and I try to be EXTREMELY careful with loading a gun with live ammunition, always be aware of what it's pointing at, and making sure that safety stays on until it's ready to fire down range. Most people around PXR know me quite well and they know I'm not a nutcase that would go shooting up innocent people. Like I said before, a gun for home protection is like a fire extinguisher. You don't get one hoping you have to use it, but it's there in case of an emergency. Sorry, but I just don't trust a 10-15 minute police response time with my life (and that's even if you can get to the phone and use it).

To be honest, it was kind of an over-reaction on my part; like I said, it's the first event like this that's really had a bad effect on me, and I was really tired so didn't want to go into detail about the issue at the time.

I agree that owning a gun doesn't automatically make people commit these things, but you can't deny that it does influence their likelihood of using a gun for bad. Accessibility is one of the major driving forces in our behaviour; if it's easily done, we're more likely to do it. Don't forget that there are states where registering the gun isn't required upon purchase, which effectively bypasses background checks because it means unregistered can be bought from another private party. For example, someone could buy an unregistered secondhand gun in Arizona and take it home, despite having been barred from owning a gun in their own state. My issue isn't with owning the guns, that's a big part of your culture. Instead, it's with the inconsistency and lack of stringency surrounding the regulation of their sale.

I also fail to see why assault rifles are needed for personal use. Only having them available at firing ranges would mean people can still enjoy them, while reducing the chance of a potential killer being able to use one. In this case, the killer managed to get an assault rifle despite being flagged as a potential jihadist and being interviewed by the FBI twice, which to me really highlights the issues with regulation the US faces. My personal opinion is that it's better to take a cautious approach, with psychological tests, extensive background checks and strict safety training being required to purchase any gun.

Please don't think that my opposition to gun laws is a personal attack on you - everyone here knows you wouldn't hurt someone unless it was truly necessary, and you respect your guns as the lethal weapons they are. My opposition has a strong cultural influence; the only time I've encountered guns were as a child living in Northern Ireland (my dad was a soldier and was repeatedly fired at by the IRA), and being used by counter-terrorism police.

There were definitely mental and bigotry issues here. And there were radical Islamic issues in addition to that (at least from what I read). The guns were the means of the crime, I will not deny that, but they do NOT reflect the thoughts that were running through this guy's head or his background. It takes a LOT of deranged mental thinking to suddenly decide you're going to take those firearms, pack up enough ammo, drive all the way to the nightclub, and not ONCE along the way stop and think about how what you're about to do is totally wrong and just outright monstrous. That is where your mental issue lies. He could have loaded that car up with explosives, fire bombs, poisonous gas bombs, or whatnot and still could have done just as much damage.

I agree that it takes a certain loss of contact with reality to commit such atrocities, but this isn't necessarily psychopathic. If you haven't heard of it, I recommend looking up the Stanford Prison Experiment by P. Zimbardo - although not anywhere near the level of violence shown here, it is an interesting insight into what people can do to each other simply due to dehumanising another group.

Spoiler:

I was interested to see if arson really is more prevalent in the UK
UK (2013-14): (21,900/64,100,000)*100000 = 34 per 100,000 (gov.uk)
US (2014): (42,934/318,900,000) = 13 per 100,000 (FBI)
However, this is cases, not deaths; I couldn't find anything about deaths due to arson in the UK. It may well be that this is used as a means of murder in the UK. I believe we have a higher rate of knife crime as well. However, it's worth noting that the US has an overall homicide rate of 3.8 per 100,000 whereas the UK's is 1.0 (source)

Second, those statistics can't really be counted because for one, correlation does not equal causation, and two, you need to analyze WHY the gun was used in those cases, and if you're only looking at numbers, you're not getting the whole picture. A person who commits suicide with a gun could have jumped off a bridge or dive in front of an oncoming train instead. Meanwhile, a gun accident is caused by negligence, misuse, and lack of education, which is a fatal outcome possible with many other machines and tools like cars, power tools, and things that could involve fire, electricity, and chemicals.

Correlation definitely doesn't equal causation, but it does indicate relationships that need to be addressed and further researched into. But despite the other potential methods, the US still has a higher rate of suicide than the UK, rate but only marginally higher than Canada. It does make me wonder whether it's the guns or just cultural difference - maybe violence is just more common in a highly individualistic society like the USA? But maybe the increased violence is linked to gun availability being such an ingrained aspect of culture? It's too complex of a relationship for anyone to say.

[5TailedDemonLizard]

I feel like I need to add my two cents to this issue but I want to do it by providing statistics that haven't been brought up yet.

While I do believe that a responsible gun owner, who knows how to use a gun responsibly and has been educated in its use, can own a gun to protect their family, etc. I also believe that there is no reason to own an assault weapon in the USA. What form of protection does an assault weapon offer that a pistol cannot provide? Is there any circumstance where assault weapons must be used to mow down a large number of intruders to your house? Could gun owners defend themselves easily enough if they are educated and trained in the use of pistols instead?

The issue here is also not just gun education to prevent accidents. The issue here is gun regulation to prevent mass shootings.

As of right now, in 2016, from January 1st to June 13th (Not even 6 months yet), there have been a total of 133 mass shootings in the United States. There have been nearly equal the amount of days that we have had a mass shooting (as in, there have been at least 4 people injured or killed by a gun) that we have not. I believe the number is 88 - 74 (it's in the article I linked above).

Most of these mass shootings, at least the ones that have been reported in the news, have been committed with the use of assault weapons. Yes, there are other factors. Mental illness may be a factor, but not in all the attacks. The Charleston Church Shooting, has been confirmed by the attacker to be racially spurred. This current shooting has been stated to have occurred because of the attacker's hatred for LGBT people. The media may skew it however they want, but the largest contributing factor was that Omar Mateen, as well as being an ISIS sympathizer (and a known one at that), had such a hatred for gay people that he sought to end their lives.

With an assault weapon, he killed 51 people and injured 49 others. There could still be more deaths if those that were injured do not recover.

This is deplorable. The fact that so many people died so quickly is disgusting to me. I know people who know people who died in this shooting. That's two degrees of separation. How long does this have to go on before there are more regulations put in place to prevent this. I know that people say that "people will still get their hands on guns like they do with drugs", but is that really true...? What about other countries that have instituted bans?

If we look at Australia, they instituted bans after a mass shooting in April, 1996. Since then, Australia has had no mass shootings. People have died via guns, yes, but the fact remains that there has not been a mass shooting since the ban has been instituted.

Am I saying that I want to take away all guns? No. What I am saying is that we need to look at the facts, and enact stricter regulations on assault weapons, and require that a strict education is needed to be able to use a gun. Drivers need to go through tests and multiple stages of training to be able to drive a car and not get arrested by police should they get pulled over. Why can the same not be said of gun owners? There are responsible gun owners, I know that. What I also know, however, is that the lives of hundreds of people (children included), are at risk the more assault weapons are in rotation in the United States.

And please don't tell me that you can still murder people with a knife, or a car, or things like that. I know that. I've read about it. But what I've also read about are 1st through 5th graders being shot down in a school by a gunman, and 50+ club goers being mowed down by a gunman, and many other situations where the mass murder could have been prevented if it took more than simply holding down the trigger of an assault weapon. Gun owners can still use assault weapons at ranges, I'm fine with that. What I am not fine with is assault weapons not being strictly regulated, and at every turn that gun owners cry that the government is trying to "take away their guns" and preventing progress.

This is the world we all live in. I don't want to live in fear that I could be in the wrong place at the wrong time, on one of the days of the year that a mass shooting happens. It occurs so frequently now that it could occur anywhere at any time. I don't want the two or one degree of separation I have to become zero. Aren't the lives of the people being murdered more important than the need to own an assault weapon? Couldn't any other weapon do?

[Noblejanobii]

Y'all bring up a lot of good points and I respect that because they are well thought out and also considering what Neo and I have said in addition to that. I respect your opinions, but you know, I can't help but fear that if we outlaw guns, one day when I'd be legally allowed to possess one but couldn't because the laws prevented it, someone is going to break into my house and physically harm me or worse, and it could have been prevented if I had a gun. At my current house, I usually feel pretty safe because we have a dog that alerts me if someone so much as drives by our house. At college, the security systems are crazy as crap so I doubt anything will happen there. But in four or six years, when I'm on my own, living in my own apartment or house, what am I to do when the only thing that could possibly protect me is illegal for me to use now, but the guy who is coming to kidnap me and sell me through a human trafficking ring does have one. That is my biggest fear when it comes to outlawing guns. It always has been and it always will be, and it is the main reason that when I turn twenty-one, I'm learning how to shoot a gun and purchasing one as soon as I can following that.

[5TailedDemonLizard]

Y'all bring up a lot of good points and I respect that because they are well thought out and also considering what Neo and I have said in addition to that. I respect your opinions, but you know, I can't help but fear that if we outlaw guns, one day when I'd be legally allowed to possess one but couldn't because the laws prevented it, someone is going to break into my house and physically harm me or worse, and it could have been prevented if I had a gun. At my current house, I usually feel pretty safe because we have a dog that alerts me if someone so much as drives by our house. At college, the security systems are crazy as crap so I doubt anything will happen there. But in four or six years, when I'm on my own, living in my own apartment or house, what am I to do when the only thing that could possibly protect me is illegal for me to use now, but the guy who is coming to kidnap me and sell me through a human trafficking ring does have one. That is my biggest fear when it comes to outlawing guns. It always has been and it always will be, and it is the main reason that when I turn twenty-one, I'm learning how to shoot a gun and purchasing one as soon as I can following that.

The thing is, people don't want to outlaw guns. They want to heavily regulate them. We don't want to take away guns from people (not all of them, anyway).

So many people have died since January 1st. Why has nothing been changed? How many more people need to die before something is done? In the 133 mass shootings, if each only had 5 victims, it would total to over 660 deaths. With this orlando shooting alone it reaches 700+.

In five months.

Why is this still happening? Why haven't more regulations been put in place? I don't want a gun-free America.

I want a safer, gun-regulated America.

[Daughter of Mew]

The thing is, people don't want to outlaw guns. They want to heavily regulate them. We don't want to take away guns from people (not all of them, anyway).

^This is exactly what I was trying to say, but phrased a lot better. A lot of Americans seem to think regulation=prohibition, but that's not the case. It's exactly like alcohol and tobaco - they're not prohibited, but they ARE regulated (albeit not very well) to ensure minimal damage. The right to bear arms is literally protected in the constitution, and it has a lot of importance to the USA as a country, but safety also has to be considered. Stringent checks are actually the best of both worlds - it protects that right, while also filtering out most of the dangers.

It's also worth noting that people have a tendency to seriously overestimate crime; the chance of someone actually breaking in to your house is extremely low, but repeated exposure in the media etc. makes people think it's more likely that it really is. I study Psychology and my uni specialises in Forensic Psychology so I know a fair bit about that effect. I can totally understand the fear though - I see it every day as my boyfriend refuses to go to bed without double locking our front door, despite the fact we're the top floor of a block of flats and know every resident.

[Noblejanobii]

And y'all seem to have been ignoring what I will be stating for the third time, I'm okay with gun regulation. Quit acting like I'm not because I have said that now three times. I just don't want that regulation to get out of hand. Probably the best example for this I can give is that during a simulation of the statehouse that the state does every year, this year the sheer amount of bills on the Confederate flag and gun laws were astounding, but not unexpected given that one of the people who died in the Charleston shooting was a member of the state congress. We ended up voting most of the gun laws down because we felt they breached the second amendment in one way or another, but someone brought up a very good point the counter the common argument of "it'll prevent things like charleston from happening." He said that we shouldn't restrict people from getting access to guns, we need to make the process of obtaining one more difficult. As I stated before, it's relatively easy to obtain a gun since there's only one permit required (permit to carry a handgun) and as long as you meet the four qualifications you're free to buy as many as you would like. So nearly everyone in my state owns a gun, that's just something we deal with. Now look at the voting process. In my state, it's not difficult to get a voting license, but it can be depending on where you go to get one, especially with the new photo ID laws and stuff. It's becoming extremely difficult to get a voting license, so less and less people are going out to vote in my state. So, imagine for a second, if gun laws worked like that. Imagine if we made the process so hard that it would deter people from getting guns. Sure, there'd be riots all over the place in my state because almost everyone here owns a firearm, but still, it would decrease how many people own and use a gun, making it less accessible to people, like the Charleston shooter, to screw things up for the rest of us.

It's also worth noting that people have a tendency to seriously overestimate crime; the chance of someone actually breaking in to your house is extremely low, but repeated exposure in the media etc. makes people think it's more likely that it really is. I study Psychology and my uni specialises in Forensic Psychology so I know a fair bit about that effect. I can totally understand the fear though - I see it every day as my boyfriend refuses to go to bed without double locking our front door, despite the fact we're the top floor of a block of flats and know every resident.

It's also worth noting that in my school, not the school district, not the county, not the state, not the country, my school, hearing about break ins and rapes is not an uncommon thing at all. I'm not "seriously overestimating crime" when I hear from teachers, students, and parents about how so and so was raped the other week or so and so's house was broken into. Heck, we had at least one student die a year at my school due to break ins. This was not an uncommon thing and it was terrifying for everyone because you never knew if you were going to be the next one to bite the dust. So, no, this isn't due to repeated exposure to the media, this is due to the repeated witnessing of the effects of what break ins have done to these people.