• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

An armed society: solution to mass shootings?

an anarchist

Your local anarchist.
With the recent mass shootings, my social anxiety has been heightened. It’s scary, going out, knowing in America that some psycho might start shooting up the Walmart. I used to have guns, but I got rid of them for personal reasons. I’m thinking of getting another gun, though, for self defense.
In our current system, defense of our lives is outsourced to the state. We are not incentivized to learn how to defend ourselves or arm ourselves. We are told to run for our lives.
What is a practical solution to this gun violence? This site leans left I think, I’ve seen a lot of support for more legislation to counter mass shootings. But is that really practical? Or is it more practical if individuals actually were capable of defending their own lives. In a hypothetical ancap society, individuals would be economically incentivized to have the capacity to defend themselves.
Is this not the practical solution? The state has proven that they are incapable of defending our lives in the event of a mass shooting. Police simply don’t arrive on time. Who else can an individual depend on for defense of their lives other than themselves. However, this practical solution is often scoffed at. Such faith in the state people have, that it is believed legislation can protect them.
Simply arming people would be inefficient. Sufficient training would be necessary. Imagine this at a mass scale, a society of well armed and well trained individuals. I believe this would serve as a more effective defense against mass shootings rather than our current system. Our current system fails us and there is mass shootings multiple times a week sometimes. It’s f’n disgraceful and absolutely terrifying.
How is legislation and more statism a practical solution? It is not, imo.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Its absolutely insane to think that more guns would some how be a solution, time has shown the more guns that are out there, the more people that die
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
With the recent mass shootings, my social anxiety has been heightened. It’s scary, going out, knowing in America that some psycho might start shooting up the Walmart. I used to have guns, but I got rid of them for personal reasons. I’m thinking of getting another gun, though, for self defense.
In our current system, defense of our lives is outsourced to the state. We are not incentivized to learn how to defend ourselves or arm ourselves. We are told to run for our lives.
What is a practical solution to this gun violence? This site leans left I think, I’ve seen a lot of support for more legislation to counter mass shootings. But is that really practical? Or is it more practical if individuals actually were capable of defending their own lives. In a hypothetical ancap society, individuals would be economically incentivized to have the capacity to defend themselves.
Is this not the practical solution? The state has proven that they are incapable of defending our lives in the event of a mass shooting. Police simply don’t arrive on time. Who else can an individual depend on for defense of their lives other than themselves. However, this practical solution is often scoffed at. Such faith in the state people have, that it is believed legislation can protect them.
Simply arming people would be inefficient. Sufficient training would be necessary. Imagine this at a mass scale, a society of well armed and well trained individuals. I believe this would serve as a more effective defense against mass shootings rather than our current system. Our current system fails us and there is mass shootings multiple times a week sometimes. It’s f’n disgraceful and absolutely terrifying.
How is legislation and more statism a practical solution? It is not, imo.
Have you thought of banning/controlling guns, like most civilised countries do
 

an anarchist

Your local anarchist.
Have you thought of banning/controlling guns, like most civilised countries do
Yes, but it isn’t foolproof, is it? Banning guns only limits an individual’s capacity to defend himself. If guns are banned, a psycho will still be able to slip through the cracks and get himself a gun.
Perhaps some mass shootings would be prevented by stringent gun control. This is because an individual won’t be as easily able to get a gun, that’s the logic behind it, right? Looking at the stats, America does have the most mass shootings out of more developed countries.
Yet, there would still be mass shootings. Guns could be made in a garage. No amount of gun control will prevent all mass shootings. If individuals, on a mass scale, had adequate training and were adequately prepared to defend themselves against a shooter, then I’d wager casualties would be limited and mass shootings would possibly be deterred. We are a society of sheep requiring a shepherd (a state) to defend our lives. What if we were all lions instead? I think a whole societal change is necessary to tackle this problem.
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
Yes, but it isn’t foolproof, is it? Banning guns only limits an individual’s capacity to defend himself. If guns are banned, a psycho will still be able to slip through the cracks and get himself a gun.
Perhaps some mass shootings would be prevented by stringent gun control. This is because an individual won’t be as easily able to get a gun, that’s the logic behind it, right? Looking at the stats, America does have the most mass shootings out of more developed countries.
Yet, there would still be mass shootings. Guns could be made in a garage. No amount of gun control will prevent all mass shootings. If individuals, on a mass scale, had adequate training and were adequately prepared to defend themselves against a shooter, then I’d wager casualties would be limited and mass shootings would possibly be deterred. We are a society of sheep requiring a shepherd (a state) to defend our lives. What if we were all lions instead? I think a whole societal change is necessary to tackle this problem.

In the UK, the general citizenry do not have guns. Mass shootings are thankfully extremely rare. There's an obvious connection there.

Obviously by comparison the US has one a week. And the murder rate is similar to the likes of Cuba , Angola and Kazakhstan.
 

Orbit

I'm a planet
Yes, but it isn’t foolproof, is it? Banning guns only limits an individual’s capacity to defend himself. If guns are banned, a psycho will still be able to slip through the cracks and get himself a gun.
Perhaps some mass shootings would be prevented by stringent gun control. This is because an individual won’t be as easily able to get a gun, that’s the logic behind it, right? Looking at the stats, America does have the most mass shootings out of more developed countries.
Yet, there would still be mass shootings. Guns could be made in a garage. No amount of gun control will prevent all mass shootings. If individuals, on a mass scale, had adequate training and were adequately prepared to defend themselves against a shooter, then I’d wager casualties would be limited and mass shootings would possibly be deterred. We are a society of sheep requiring a shepherd (a state) to defend our lives. What if we were all lions instead? I think a whole societal change is necessary to tackle this problem.

Do a little research on the case of Australia. They were like the US, but after a mass shooting they enacted gun control; deaths from guns plummeted.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
There are many people who will not handle a gun, period.

There are many people who should not have a gun under any circumstances in my opinion--knowing that they are armed will do nothing to make me feel safer, and will in reality reduce safety.

I don't really have a problem with guns, even though I don't currently own any. But having a gun would do nothing to make me feel safer; I would always be worried about accidents, someone stealing it, etc.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Yes, but it isn’t foolproof, is it? Banning guns only limits an individual’s capacity to defend himself. If guns are banned, a psycho will still be able to slip through the cracks and get himself a gun.
Perhaps some mass shootings would be prevented by stringent gun control. This is because an individual won’t be as easily able to get a gun, that’s the logic behind it, right? Looking at the stats, America does have the most mass shootings out of more developed countries.
Yet, there would still be mass shootings. Guns could be made in a garage. No amount of gun control will prevent all mass shootings. If individuals, on a mass scale, had adequate training and were adequately prepared to defend themselves against a shooter, then I’d wager casualties would be limited and mass shootings would possibly be deterred. We are a society of sheep requiring a shepherd (a state) to defend our lives. What if we were all lions instead? I think a whole societal change is necessary to tackle this problem.
Have you studied the figures for countries that ban or seriously control guns?
No, it is NOT fool proof, but it greatly reduces deaths.
More guns = more deaths be they on purpose or even accidental.
 

an anarchist

Your local anarchist.
In the UK, the general citizenry do not have guns. Mass shootings are thankfully extremely rare. There's an obvious connection there.

Obviously by comparison the US has one a week. And the murder rate is similar to the likes of Cuba , Angola and Kazakhstan.
Hmm. Murder rates aside (though that’s arguably more important than the problem I’m going to propose) an unarmed citizenry allows for a tyrannical government to arise essentially unopposed. Not that the well armed citizenry of America has prevented a tyrannical government from fermenting, but the point still stands I think. Just playing devils advocate. Protection of innocent life is arguably more important than the prevention of a tyrannical state, though I’m inclined to disagree. Just barely. I feel the existence of the state perpetuates violence in all forms, but that’s just me.
What I’m suggesting in the OP is that a society of defensible individuals would be more effective than the UK gun laws. I think it would be extremely practical. It would require mass participation, however, and as @beenherebeforeagain mentioned, some people will refuse to participate in such a thing. In the hypothetical I propose, individuals would be able to defend themselves against all forms of aggression, not just shootings. I’m curious about the rate of violent crime in the UK. Is violent crime (done without firearms) at a similar rate to violent crime in the US? I don’t know if that information is readily available, off to google I suppose.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
With the recent mass shootings, my social anxiety has been heightened. It’s scary, going out, knowing in America that some psycho might start shooting up the Walmart. I used to have guns, but I got rid of them for personal reasons. I’m thinking of getting another gun, though, for self defense.
It's difficult to make good decisions under stress and anxiety. Just say'n.
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
Is violent crime (done without firearms) at a similar rate to violent crime in the US? I don’t know if that information is readily available, off to google I suppose.

To hear is to obey:

1C611365-C177-40E3-B2EA-3C225FA1D21E.jpeg
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
With the recent mass shootings, my social anxiety has been heightened. It’s scary, going out, knowing in America that some psycho might start shooting up the Walmart. I used to have guns, but I got rid of them for personal reasons. I’m thinking of getting another gun, though, for self defense.
Yep. That's why there are mass shootings and psychos have access to guns. Gun sales go through the roof after shootings. They are practically advertisement for firearm manufacturers.
Creating fear. Fear shuts down rational thinking. People buy guns out of fear, not out of necessity.
US citizens are in so much fear that its a miracle that about half of them are still able to think rationally from time to time.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
With the recent mass shootings, my social anxiety has been heightened. It’s scary, going out, knowing in America that some psycho might start shooting up the Walmart. I used to have guns, but I got rid of them for personal reasons. I’m thinking of getting another gun, though, for self defense.
In our current system, defense of our lives is outsourced to the state. We are not incentivized to learn how to defend ourselves or arm ourselves. We are told to run for our lives.
What is a practical solution to this gun violence? This site leans left I think, I’ve seen a lot of support for more legislation to counter mass shootings. But is that really practical? Or is it more practical if individuals actually were capable of defending their own lives. In a hypothetical ancap society, individuals would be economically incentivized to have the capacity to defend themselves.
Is this not the practical solution? The state has proven that they are incapable of defending our lives in the event of a mass shooting. Police simply don’t arrive on time. Who else can an individual depend on for defense of their lives other than themselves. However, this practical solution is often scoffed at. Such faith in the state people have, that it is believed legislation can protect them.
Simply arming people would be inefficient. Sufficient training would be necessary. Imagine this at a mass scale, a society of well armed and well trained individuals. I believe this would serve as a more effective defense against mass shootings rather than our current system. Our current system fails us and there is mass shootings multiple times a week sometimes. It’s f’n disgraceful and absolutely terrifying.
How is legislation and more statism a practical solution? It is not, imo.

Let's take a look at statistics and see if a well armed society is the solution to mass shootings. If there's any legitimacy to the claim then you'd find that the societies that have the most armaments among its citizens would have the lowest rate of mass shootings and those nations with the least amount of arms in the population would have the highest rate of mass shootings.

Unfortunately the statistic show the exact opposite.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
With the recent mass shootings, my social anxiety has been heightened. It’s scary, going out, knowing in America that some psycho might start shooting up the Walmart. I used to have guns, but I got rid of them for personal reasons. I’m thinking of getting another gun, though, for self defense.
In our current system, defense of our lives is outsourced to the state. We are not incentivized to learn how to defend ourselves or arm ourselves. We are told to run for our lives.
What is a practical solution to this gun violence? This site leans left I think, I’ve seen a lot of support for more legislation to counter mass shootings. But is that really practical? Or is it more practical if individuals actually were capable of defending their own lives. In a hypothetical ancap society, individuals would be economically incentivized to have the capacity to defend themselves.
Is this not the practical solution? The state has proven that they are incapable of defending our lives in the event of a mass shooting. Police simply don’t arrive on time. Who else can an individual depend on for defense of their lives other than themselves. However, this practical solution is often scoffed at. Such faith in the state people have, that it is believed legislation can protect them.
Simply arming people would be inefficient. Sufficient training would be necessary. Imagine this at a mass scale, a society of well armed and well trained individuals. I believe this would serve as a more effective defense against mass shootings rather than our current system. Our current system fails us and there is mass shootings multiple times a week sometimes. It’s f’n disgraceful and absolutely terrifying.
How is legislation and more statism a practical solution? It is not, imo.

1) Training depends on the state, so some have training and some don't. We have too many with rednecky attitudes and that is scary. 2) Mental health screening before one can own a gun isn't the same across the board either, I think, so some folks who should not get hold of a gun can. (Insert previous comment about rednecks.) 3) The gun show loop holes make it difficult (see previous ad nauseum comments about rednecks.) In Florida, my 19 year old can own a gun but can't buy one. Something like that. I remember talking about that with my husband and it was really ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Yes, but it isn’t foolproof, is it? Banning guns only limits an individual’s capacity to defend himself.
Perhaps some mass shootings would be prevented by stringent gun control. This is because an individual won’t be as easily able to get a gun, that’s the logic behind it, right? Looking at the stats, America does have the most mass shootings out of more developed countries.
Yet, there would still be mass shootings. Guns could be made in a garage. No amount of gun control will prevent all mass shootings. If individuals, on a mass scale, had adequate training and were adequately prepared to defend themselves against a shooter, then I’d wager casualties would be limited and mass shootings would possibly be deterred. We are a society of sheep requiring a shepherd (a state) to defend our lives. What if we were all lions instead? I think a whole societal change is necessary to tackle this problem.

Banning guns only limits an individual’s capacity to defend himself.

That's not true. It also reduces the number of guns available to the type of people who participate in mass shootings.

If guns are banned, a psycho will still be able to slip through the cracks and get himself a gun.

Yes, even if guns are banned psychos will slip through the cracks. But it's better to force the psychos to jump through all of the hurdles require to slip through the cracks in order to get a gun than to open up the front doors and enable them to get a gun as easily as possible.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
With the recent mass shootings, my social anxiety has been heightened. It’s scary, going out, knowing in America that some psycho might start shooting up the Walmart. I used to have guns, but I got rid of them for personal reasons. I’m thinking of getting another gun, though, for self defense.
In our current system, defense of our lives is outsourced to the state. We are not incentivized to learn how to defend ourselves or arm ourselves. We are told to run for our lives.
What is a practical solution to this gun violence? This site leans left I think, I’ve seen a lot of support for more legislation to counter mass shootings. But is that really practical? Or is it more practical if individuals actually were capable of defending their own lives. In a hypothetical ancap society, individuals would be economically incentivized to have the capacity to defend themselves.
Is this not the practical solution? The state has proven that they are incapable of defending our lives in the event of a mass shooting. Police simply don’t arrive on time. Who else can an individual depend on for defense of their lives other than themselves. However, this practical solution is often scoffed at. Such faith in the state people have, that it is believed legislation can protect them.
Simply arming people would be inefficient. Sufficient training would be necessary. Imagine this at a mass scale, a society of well armed and well trained individuals. I believe this would serve as a more effective defense against mass shootings rather than our current system. Our current system fails us and there is mass shootings multiple times a week sometimes. It’s f’n disgraceful and absolutely terrifying.
How is legislation and more statism a practical solution? It is not, imo.

 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Yes, but it isn’t foolproof, is it? Banning guns only limits an individual’s capacity to defend himself. If guns are banned, a psycho will still be able to slip through the cracks and get himself a gun.
There will always be the risk of someone getting hold of a gun and go nuts.

Ask yourself, with all the shootings going on in the US over the years, how many of them have been prevented or stopped by civilians wearing guns?

Secondly, those people doing these things are not gang members etc. which are usually those in EU countries that are bound to have firearms in the first place. And at least in Denmark they occasionally use them to shoot at other gangs and obviously that is not acceptable, but they don't do mass shootings of random people.
It is not especially easy for a normal person to get hold of a gun here, but I have no doubt that if it were as in the US, we would also have mass shootings, because we also have people capable of these things if they had the opportunity.

So the idea with gun control is not especially aimed at the gangs, they are going to get them no matter what, it is to keep it out of hand from normal people, children etc. where there occasionally is accidents etc. and mental people that decide to go nuts.
 
Top