So, Gun Control...

[Meltman]

Since this is apparently a hot button issue with quite a few people, here's a thread to debate about it.

My personal opinion is that a bunch of new laws aren't going to do any good unless they're very well enforced, which I really don't see happening in the immediate future.

[suburbanhell]

Yeah, no change to the gun control laws will stop what happened at VT from happening again.

[Endless One]

Okay Melty don't take this like as I don't absolutely adore you because I do. I'm doing this to present my side of said debate and I assure you that no animals were harmed during the forming of my opinion ;)

So...because you think nothing can be done, to prevent all of it from happening, then we should do nothing about it? Sounds like how our government works allready.

[suburbanhell]

We should not do anything about it as far as gun control goes. Why waste more time and money on something that won't work. Look for an alternative solution.

[Endless One]

Because, there is no reason whatsoever for the common man to carry a hand gun. Hand guns are created for the purpose of shooting a person. If preventing a person from purchasing a handgun could prevent someone's son or daughter from getting it and blowing their own brains out in a fit of self loathing or that of the 5 year old neighbor because they were "playing" with it, then its worth every dollar in my bank account.

[suburbanhell]

Yeah well if you allow your son or daughter, or even a ****ing 5 year old to get access to a gun then you're just as stupid as they are for blowing their brains out.

RESPONSIBLE ADULTS should have no problem in having a hand gun.

[Endless One]

You say don't waste our money on gun control hmm? Yet our government spends tax payers dollars every year protecting us from gay marriage, and Christmas trees in small town squares. Where's the logic in that?

Why is it harder for me to adopt a cat from the humane society than it is for me to get a gun?

(hope no one takes this personally, btw. I'm not trying to be mean to people)

[Meltman]

Okay Melty don't take this like as I don't absolutely adore you because I do. I'm doing this to present my side of said debate and I assure you that no animals were harmed during the forming of my opinion ;)

So...because you think nothing can be done, to prevent all of it from happening, then we should do nothing about it? Sounds like how our government works allready.

What I'm saying is we should work on the enforcement end first, but I'm also conceding that it's unlikely that will happen soon, exactly because of how our government works already.

[Charon]

I'd like to put this to all of you anti-gun control folks, and I'd like you to actually read it and take in what I'm saying... Because, as far as I'm concerned, this is infallible logic.

Guns were once legal with a license in the United Kingdom. Gun laws were similar to America except we had no constitutional right to bear arms in an organised militia to stop them from being banned. There were gun clubs, many people owned firearms, and as such there was a risk that somebody would use them for the wrong purpose.

On August 19, 1987, the Hungerford Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_Massacre) occured. Michael Ryan shot sixteen people including his mother and then shot himself on a rampage in the village of Hungerford. In the weeks and months afterwards, legislation was passed which banned the ownership of all assault rifles and put restrictions on the use and ownership of shotguns.

A few years passed, until 1996. On March 13, Thomas Hamilton committed the Dunblane Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre), in which he walked into a Primary School and killed sixteen children, one adult and then himself. In the weeks and months afterwards, legislation was passed that banned the use of handguns, and further restricted the ownership and use of rifles and shotguns.

The next time... wait a minute, there wasn't a next time. There is no way for the average psycho in this country to lay their hands on a gun... And believe me, massacres are a lot harder when you're armed with nothing but a kitchen knife.

It's unbreakable logic. A guy massacred a bunch of people with an assault rifle, so they were banned. Another guy massacred a bunch of people with a handgun so they were banned. No one massacres people here anymore. It just doesn't happen.

[Bitter Babe]

There is gun control now and it's obviously not working. Unfortunately this person was a very disturbed individual, however, he was able to pass a background check, waiting period and still get two guns. If he wasn't able to get it legally I'm sure he would have gotten it illegally.

People should have their guns locked away in a safe place but that's not always the case.

Who says if take away guns people won't start buy more knives and stabbing people?

[Endless One]

And amazingly enough people still go and hunt in England. Then again who takes an assault rifle hunting?

[Bitter Babe]

That I have to agree with EO. Why do people need assault rifles? Those guns should only belong to the military.

[Endless One]

There is gun control now and it's obviously not working. Unfortunately this person was a very disturbed individual, however, he was able to pass a background check, waiting period and still get two guns. If he wasn't able to get it legally I'm sure he would have gotten it illegally.

People should have their guns locked away in a safe place but that's not always the case.

Who says if take away guns people won't start buy more knives and stabbing people?

Its harder to stab a room full of people?

[Charon]

If he wasn't able to get it legally I'm sure he would have gotten it illegally.
Then how do you explain that since the complete ban of assault rifles and handguns, and the restrictions placed on shotguns and rifles in the U.K., not one massacre of this kind has occured?

If someone even gets shot, it makes major national news, and by my understanding if just one person gets shot in America it's lucky to make the local station.

[Bitter Babe]

Well I'm not just talking a room full of people like what happened at VT. Boston has had an influx of murders this year, all young people. Who says those shootings wouldn't have been stabbings?

[Charon]

Well I'm not just talking a room full of people like what happened at VT. Boston has had an influx of murders this year, all young people. Who says those shootings wouldn't have been stabbings?
Who cares? If you take away the guns it's just one less means of killing people. If they decide to do it with a knife they decide to do it with a knife, but it's a lot more clumsy and impractical for killing large numbers of people.

Guns are killing machines. Nothing else.

[Bitter Babe]

Then how do you explain that since the complete ban of assault rifles and handguns, and the restrictions placed on shotguns and rifles in the U.K., not one massacre of this kind has occured?

If someone even gets shot, it makes major national news, and by my understanding if just one person gets shot in America it's lucky to make the local station.

I can't explain it, although I think things are obviously very different between our two countries. I think our societies are completely different and for some reason people in this country are prone to more violence.

A complete ban would never be allowed in this country because people would scream about their 2nd amendment rights.

[Charon]

I think our societies are completely different and for some reason people in this country are prone to more violence.
Rubbish.

People are people, and we both live in similar western societies. Things are different because guns are illegal here.

[suburbanhell]

You say don't waste our money on gun control hmm? Yet our government spends tax payers dollars every year protecting us from gay marriage, and Christmas trees in small town squares. Where's the logic in that?

Why is it harder for me to adopt a cat from the humane society than it is for me to get a gun?

And I'm against wasting our money on that bull**** too.

[suburbanhell]

That I have to agree with EO. Why do people need assault rifles? Those guns should only belong to the military.

And yet we're GIVING every family in Iraq one, but won't trust our own civilians with them.

[Charon]

And yet we're GIVING every family in Iraq one, but won't trust our own civilians with them.
Iraq is a wartorn, dangerous country with paramilitants roaming free.

When was the last time an organised militia tried to drag you out of bed in the middle of the night and shoot you?

[Bitter Babe]

Rubbish.

People are people, and we both live in similar western societies. Things are different because guns are illegal here.

Yes we both live in similar western societies, however, and for reasons I don't know, people in this country seem to not give a **** about other people and feel the need to kill other people while people in England are perfectly happy that they don't have guns.

I don't want tons of guns on the streets but unfortunately I don't think a total ban would work in this country.

[Charon]

Yes we both live in similar western societies, however, and for reasons I don't know, people in this country seem to not give a **** about other people and feel the need to kill other people while people in England are perfectly happy that they don't have guns.

I don't want tons of guns on the streets but unfortunately I don't think a total ban would work in this country.
Your argument is flawed because you're not giving reasons for your statements.

We have murderers here, serial killers, and before guns were illegal we had mass murderers. All we've done is taken away the most deadly means of death from these people, and that's what America needs to do too.

And if you don't think we have screwed up people in this country? Ever hear of Harold Shipman? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Shipman)

[suburbanhell]

I can't explain it, although I think things are obviously very different between our two countries. I think our societies are completely different and for some reason people in this country are prone to more violence.

It's not Rubbish Charon, the societies are different.

We are prone to violence because unlike Europe, the US has this awful taboo on sex but has absolutely no problem with showing all the violence in the world.

GOD FORBID a semi-covered boob goes out on national television here! Meanwhile look at what is it, page 3? Page 6? of your local newspaper, boob city. Every single day on the news there's this person died and that person was blown to smithereens and here's some video of it. We're utterly desensitized to violence here. Hell the guy in the cube next to me could come in and hang himself and I wouldn't even notice really.

[Blackbat]

If criminals can get one, then I want one.

I don't want constraints on my ability to protect myself or my family. The criminals are going to get them no matter what law is passed, if he walks in my house with a gun then I want to be able to meet him with equal or greater force.

Plus, there is no way in hell that a law to ban all firearms will EVER get passed here in America. The UK is a very different place, that bill would get shot down in a heartbeat.

[Bitter Babe]

Does your constitution give people the right to bear arms? Because ours does and people interpret that as they can own as many guns, etc. that they want to and the government can't take them away.

[Meltman]

I found this an interesting read (warning: pdf file): Cross Sectional Study of the Relationship Between Levels of Gun Ownership and Violent Deaths. (http://www.wfsa.net/wfsa/adobe_documents/Cross_Sectional_Study.PDF)

[Charon]

Does your constitution give people the right to bear arms? Because ours does and people interpret that as they can own as many guns, etc. that they want to and the government can't take them away.
Actually your constitution gives the right to bear arms as part of an organised militia. It doesn't say 'Any old whackjob should be able to buy a Glock if his background check clears'.

It's not Rubbish Charon, the societies are different.

We are prone to violence because unlike Europe, the US has this awful taboo on sex but has absolutely no problem with showing all the violence in the world.

The UK is equally uptight about sex and equally desensitised towards violence. We see the same movies, the same news, and the same TV shows, so don't give me that crap.

[Endless One]

I can't explain it, although I think things are obviously very different between our two countries. I think our societies are completely different and for some reason people in this country are prone to more violence.

A complete ban would never be allowed in this country because people would scream about their 2nd amendment rights.


1. The right to bear arms was instituted in a time when most towns only means of law enforcement was a standing militia. We have a system in place for that and the conquesting countries haven't come over to occupy our homes and rape our women in a long time.

2. A stabbing murder is a much more personal crime. Its harder for someone to disassociate themselves from the actual crime when they have the blood of their victem on their hands.

3. Somehow we managed to ban shampoo from airplanes for a time. Not doing it because its too hard...not an excuse to me. It took me a year to obtain the right to cut hair in a hair salon. Why not make it much harder to obtain a gun legally?

[suburbanhell]

All we've done is taken away the most deadly means of death from these people, and that's what America needs to do too.

Well I can guarandamntee you that because of the 2nd ammendment in the bill of rights, you know, that thing we created when we decided to tell ol' King George to **** off and leave us alone, which was a war, we won with GUNS, that guns will NEVER, EVVVVVVVVVVVER be taken away from our citizens.

[suburbanhell]

1. The right to bear arms was instituted in a time when most towns only means of law enforcement was a standing militia. We have a system in place for that and the conquesting countries haven't come over to occupy our homes and rape our women in a long time.

Tell that to anyone in Texas and see what kind of response you get. :lol::D:lmao:

[Endless One]

Yeah well I didn't say that was right either. :P

[Charon]

Well I can guarandamntee you that because of the 2nd ammendment in the bill of rights, you know, that thing we created when we decided to tell ol' King George to **** off and leave us alone, which was a war, we won with GUNS, that guns will NEVER, EVVVVVVVVVVVER be taken away from our citizens.
This argument is equally flawed. Are you trying to say that military should have guns? Because, you know, the British military has guns too. Just Average Joe Psycho doesn't.

And the second ammendment is severly outdated, and as I have already stated says that citizens have the right to bear arms as part of an organised militia, not to leave lying around for Jimmy to pick up and go shoot up his high school.

[Bitter Babe]

Actually your constitution gives the right to bear arms as part of an organised militia. It doesn't say 'Any old whackjob should be able to buy a Glock if his background check clears'.



Yes Charon you and I know what it means, but other people don't interpret it that way and that is why a ban would never make it to law here.

[suburbanhell]

Just as Voltaire said:
“I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”…

I will wholeheartedly defend everything in the Bill of Rights. You want to be a fanatical muslim? Fine, I get to own a gun. You want a warrant before we break down your door and tear apart your stuff looking for something? Fine I want the freedom to say nappy headed ho's on the radio.

[Charon]

Yes Charon you and I know what it means, but other people don't interpret it that way and that is why a ban would never make it to law here.
All that means is that the 'other people' need to be educated in what their constitution actually says rather than running around and ranting that it's their right to carry a small arsenal on their person.

[suburbanhell]

And the second ammendment is severly outdated, and as I have already stated says that citizens have the right to bear arms as part of an organised militia, not to leave lying around for Jimmy to pick up and go shoot up his high school.

And again, that's not an issue of gun control but an issue of BAD PARENTING, if my son ever got a hold of a gun I owned the blame should be laid solely on ME.

[Charon]

And again, that's not an issue of gun control but an issue of BAD PARENTING, if my son ever got a hold of a gun I owned the blame should be laid solely on ME.
Well in this hypothetical situation if you didn't own that gun then he simply couldn't get his hands on it. If you do own that gun then there is a way.

I challenge you to come to England and try to buy a gun. Find out just how 'easy' it is.

[Blackbat]

Well in this hypothetical situation if you didn't own that gun then he never could have found a way to get his hands on it, just as a criminal couldn't.

I challenge you to come to England and try to buy a gun. Find out just how 'easy' it is.

Are you saying that no criminals in England own guns?

That seems utterly unbelievable. If guns were to be banned here, there are 3 groups that would have them. Local police, Military and criminals. How do you think criminals buy guns now? They don't go through a background check or buy them from the local gun store, they get them through the black market.

[suburbanhell]

Exactly, the problem with that logic is that a criminal will ALWAYS find a way to secure a weapon, even through omg, ILLEGAL methods!

[Meltman]

I found this an interesting read (warning: pdf file): Cross Sectional Study of the Relationship Between Levels of Gun Ownership and Violent Deaths. (http://www.wfsa.net/wfsa/adobe_documents/Cross_Sectional_Study.PDF)

Decided I'd quote this because apparently everyone is ignoring it, though it does show that it is just America.

COMMENTARY
Examination of the table based on the UN survey shows that the United States has a
very high level of gun ownership and also has very high levels of homicide, gun suicide
and gun accidents but with high level of gun homicide. But that one example does not
establish an invariable rule. Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, New Zealand and
Sweden all have very high levels of gun ownership, Finland's being the highest recorded
in the survey. All these are matched with low or very low levels of homicide, with very
low accident levels in all but one case and with very variable suicide rates.

[Got]

Glasgow, head for head, has a higher murder rate than New York (circa 2004 anyway). Most of those murders are gang or drug related which means they'd happen if guns were legal or not, the people that are involved in these sorts of crimes beyond a shadow of a doubt know exactly where to get these weapons. So to an extent I agree that banning guns in America won't stop these crimes.

However, say for instance, a geeky engineering student at Glasgow university goes a bit mental and decides he wants to go on a rampage. Where does he start? Does he take a stroll in to the figurative badlands to see if he can source out a gun from some miscreant on the street? Of course not, because even if said prolitarian malcontent could get him a gun he'd take one look at this engineering student's Weebl and Bob t-shirt, take his money and disappear in to the ether.

[Bitter Babe]

Thanks for that Melty, I was still reading it. It makes you wonder why other countries who have high gun ownership, however they don't have high homicide rates. I think in today's society kids just shoot other kids when they argue, many years ago you would see them get into a fight after school and finish it that way.

[Charon]

Are you saying that no criminals in England own guns?

That seems utterly unbelievable. If guns were to be banned here, there are 3 groups that would have them. Local police, Military and criminals. How do you think criminals buy guns now? They don't go through a background check or buy them from the local gun store, they get them through the black market.
No. Criminals can get guns here. Gangbangers. Gangsters.

But gang members, drug dealers and gangsters spend their time shooting each other, not innocent people.

Got put it much more eloquently than I could, but my point is, if guns are banned then socially retarded, depressed kids have no idea where to get these weapons of mass murder. I'm pretty sure Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold wouldn't have known the kind of shady contacts they'd have needed here to secure two shotguns, a TEC-9, several pistols and a carbine rifle. The English Columbine massacre could never have happened. At best they'd have stabbed someone and gotten arrested.

[Solos]

I don't understand why people defending themselves 200 years ago applies today. Don't you have the largest military in the world? Who is going to invade you? For that matter, if there is an army powerful enough to overcome your army, what makes you think some hick with a rifle will save you? I don't understand why you still need guns.

[Blackbat]

No. Criminals can get guns here. Gangbangers. Gangsters.

But gang members, drug dealers and gangsters spend their time shooting each other, not innocent people.

Got put it much more eloquently than I could, but my point is, if guns are banned then socially retarded, depressed kids have no idea where to get these weapons of mass murder. I'm pretty sure Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold wouldn't have known the kind of shady contacts they'd have needed here to secure two shotguns, a TEC-9, several pistols and a carbine rifle. The English Columbine massacre could never have happened. At best they'd have stabbed someone and gotten arrested.

Point taken. But you're talking about a very, very small minority of killings. Sure, they made HUGE headlines, but in the overall scheme of things more people die from everyday murders, muggings, thefts gone wrong, rape, etc. than the highly publicized preppy mass murders you hear about on the news.

You might stop the 34 people from getting killed in a classroom, but the thousands that die every year on the street or in their home from random everyday murders wouldn't stop at all.

[Endless One]

Are you saying that no criminals in England own guns?

That seems utterly unbelievable. If guns were to be banned here, there are 3 groups that would have them. Local police, Military and criminals. How do you think criminals buy guns now? They don't go through a background check or buy them from the local gun store, they get them through the black market.


If we're going to use the VT disaster as an example. This guy, though a complete nutjob apparently, wasn't someone with a prior criminal record. I'm personally not suggesting making it harder for the average person to buy certain weapons so easily to protect myself against the guy who does the drive by. Its to protect ourselves against your average guy that goes ape**** over a break up and hoses down a school.

Its all fine and good to blame parents for not locking up their weapons. But tell that to the parents, brothers, sisters, friends of the people who just died in VA. There are SO MANY checks and balances for the ownership of just about every other type of thing, pets, cars, licenses to work, homes, etc. We need something better for those out there that want to own a gun. Owning a gun is a HUGE responsibility because you can kill someone with it. That needs to be taken more seriously than it is.

[Blackbat]

I don't understand why people defending themselves 200 years ago applies today. Don't you have the largest military in the world? Who is going to invade you? For that matter, if there is an army powerful enough to overcome your army, what makes you think some hick with a rifle will save you? I don't understand why you still need guns.

Try millions of hicks with rifles. Even if our army were defeated, you'd have a firefight with every house you passed by. It's a sobering thought.

But that's not the point. I want the right to own a gun because everyone else has them. Simple as that. I don't want to be defenseless. Making them illegal at this point wouldn't help that.

[Grae Knight]

But gang members, drug dealers and gangsters spend their time shooting each other, not innocent people.

As a former Police Officer in a anti-gang unit I can tell you that is not entirely accurate. The number of innocent people killed by gangbangers is staggering.


Got put it much more eloquently than I could, but my point is, if guns are banned then socially retarded, depressed kids have no idea where to get these weapons of mass murder. I'm pretty sure Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold wouldn't have known the kind of shady contacts they'd have needed here to secure two shotguns, a TEC-9, several pistols and a carbine rifle. The English Columbine massacre could never have happened. At best they'd have stabbed someone and gotten arrested.

Actually, at best they would have went on the internet, downloaded the plans for homemade bombs using easily accessible materials and blew the place up. Possibly killing even greater numbers. If someone wants to kill someone, there are many ways to do it. If they can not get a gun they will find another way. Banning gun ownership is not the answer. "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will own guns".

[suburbanhell]

But gang members, drug dealers and gangsters spend their time shooting each other, not innocent people.

Horse****. How many times do you see an innocent get killed in gang related crossfire? Or a coked up addict shooting people for their money so he can get more coke?

As a former Police Officer in a anti-gang unit I can tell you that is not entirely accurate. The number of innocent people killed by gangbangers is staggering.

Thank you for making my point Grae.

[Endless One]

As a former Police Officer in a anti-gang unit I can tell you that is not entirely accurate. The number of innocent people killed by gangbangers is staggering.



Actually, at best they would have went on the internet, downloaded the plans for homemade bombs using easily accessible materials and blew the place up. Possibly killing even greater numbers. If someone wants to kill someone, there are many ways to do it. If they can not get a gun they will find another way. Banning gun ownership is not the answer. "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will own guns".

But why on earth do we need the right to own assault weapons?

[Charon]

Actually, at best they would have went on the internet, downloaded the plans for homemade bombs using easily accessible materials and blew the place up. Possibly killing even greater numbers. If someone wants to kill someone, there are many ways to do it. If they can not get a gun they will find another way. Banning gun ownership is not the answer. "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will own guns".
I'm not sure what you know about Columbine, but they did that anyway. They made over a hundred home made bombs, and their original plan was to simply blow up the entire school with propane bombs and shoot the running survivors.

The point is is that they wired these bombs so badly that none of them went off, prompting the shooting that everybody now sees as the massacre. Without the guns, all you'd have been left with would be bombs that didn't go off...

... Not that deadly after all, really.

[Charon]

Horse****. How many times do you see an innocent get killed in gang related crossfire? Or a coked up addict shooting people for their money so he can get more coke?
In England?

I don't see that stuff at all. :)

[Grae Knight]

I'm not sure what you know about Columbine, but they did that anyway. They made over a hundred home made bombs, and their original plan was to simply blow up the entire school with propane bombs and shoot the running survivors.

The point is is that they wired these bombs so badly that none of them went off, prompting the shooting that everybody now sees as the massacre. Without the guns, all you'd have been left with would be bombs that didn't go off...

... Not that deadly after all, really.

And if the option to shoot was not on the table more time would have been spent creating the explosives.

How many guns did they use in the Oaklahoma City bombing of the Federal building? None. Guns are not needed to kill in large numbers. And that is my point.

[Blackbat]

But why on earth do we need the right to own assault weapons?

Arent assault weapons already illegal? They are in California.

[Bitter Babe]

As a former Police Officer in a anti-gang unit I can tell you that is not entirely accurate. The number of innocent people killed by gangbangers is staggering.



That's correct and that is the sad thing. A few weeks ago a 16 year old girl where I live was shot by mistake because they were trying to shoot at someone else and missed. The good thing is she is fine and they caught the suspects but this happens on our streets every day while massacres do not.

[Got]

Guns are not needed to kill in large numbers. And that is my point.
Nor is sugar needed in pancake mix but...

[Grae Knight]

Arent assault weapons already illegal? They are in California.

I think it expired. At least some aspects of the ban did. Fully automatic weapons are illegal.

[Blackbat]

I'm not sure what you know about Columbine, but they did that anyway. They made over a hundred home made bombs, and their original plan was to simply blow up the entire school with propane bombs and shoot the running survivors.

The point is is that they wired these bombs so badly that none of them went off, prompting the shooting that everybody now sees as the massacre. Without the guns, all you'd have been left with would be bombs that didn't go off...

... Not that deadly after all, really.

Again, you're talking about a very small percentage of killings. They just make the news more often.

[Charon]

That's correct and that is the sad thing. A few weeks ago a 16 year old girl where I live was shot by mistake because they were trying to shoot at someone else and missed. The good thing is she is fine and they caught the suspects but this happens on our streets every day while massacres do not.
But if guns are illegal less criminals will have guns, because not every standard mugger or drug taker who has been reduced to crime will know where to get them from. Will some? Sure, yes, some criminals will still have guns. But at least the few that do get their hands on guns will have to work for it, rather than just walking into a gun store and walking out with a glock.

Again, you're talking about a very small percentage of killings. They just make the news more often.

Well in that instance I was simply replying to Grae.

[Bitter Babe]

Exactly BB, they are concentrating what happened the other day because of the large number of people killed at once, those don't happen here often.

[Tarberetta]

Hasen't violent crime tripled in the UK since they banned guns there?

Look the point is that no amount of laws will stop a person with the intent to harm others. If he didn't have a gun, he could get knives, make bombs, god knows what else. Hell even a ball point pen is dangerous in the hands of someone with malicious intent.

More laws will do what, exactly? It's already illegal to kill someone no matter what the method. Not to mention that in pretty much every state, school grounds of any kind are universally marked as being "gun-free". Didn't stop this from happening. All gun-control does is take guns out of the hands of the people least likely to commit a crime in a first place, the people who respect laws. Criminals don't care about laws, they do what they want.

Now I'm a big fan of CCW (concealed carry), which has some huge requirements to even take part. Imagine for a minute if just one student was a CCW holder and had his gun with him. He may have been able to stop this guy before he killed 30 people and hurt how many more. The death tool could have been 3-4, instead of 30. Maybe it wouldn't have mattered at all. Now I'm saying "may" because we will never know, however I *do* know what happened when noone there had a weapon besides this guy.

Here's something else. WAY more people die in car crashes each year that die from being shot. However, you don't see a big push to ban cars now, do you? Maybe because you expect to get in an wreck sometime in your life, but you never expect to get shot. That there says alot. Speaking of which....I have *yet* to see the wild road rage shootouts at intersections all the anti-gun folks cried about happening when the states started passing CCW laws, and blood in the streets, and it hasn't happened, years later.

Gun control is a good idea on the surface, however it just hasn't passed a reality check, like all laws based on emotional responses. Enforce the laws we have, not make more knee-jerk new ones that also aren't enforced.

[Bitter Babe]

You also too have to bring politics into this. The NRA is one of the most influential lobbyists groups in this country. They can donate tons of money to a candidates campaign and get them to vote for their cause, which is the right to possess a gun.

[suburbanhell]

Look the point is that no amount of laws will stop a person with the intent to harm others. If he didn't have a gun, he could get knives, make bombs, god knows what else. Hell even a ball point pen is dangerous in the hands of someone with malicious intent.

More laws will do what, exactly? It's already illegal to kill someone no matter what the method. Not to mention that in pretty much every state, school grounds of any kind are universally marked as being "gun-free". Didn't stop this from happening. All gun-control does is take guns out of the hands of the people least likely to commit a crime in a first place, the people who respect laws. Criminals don't care about laws, they do what they want.

Now I'm a big fan of CCW (concealed carry), which has some huge requirements to even take part. Imagine for a minute if just one student was a CCW holder and had his gun with him. He may have been able to stop this guy before he killed 30 people and hurt how many more. The death tool could have been 3-4, instead of 30. Maybe it wouldn't have mattered at all. Now I'm saying "may" because we will never know, however I *do* know what happened when noone there had a weapon besides this guy.

QFT

[Charon]

.... Blah blah blah...noone there had a weapon besides this guy...Blah blah blah....
'This guy' wouldn't have had a gun had guns been banned, and those '3-4' people you were talking about wouldn't have died and neither would he at the hands of some vigilante like you.

[Bitter Babe]

We are just realistic, a ban would never happen in this country. Great it works for you but our country isn't open to it and never would be. A few weeks from now people will forget about this and the outrage will be over, sad but true.

[suburbanhell]

Yeah, no amount of debate is going to change the fact that we have the RIGHT to have guns, and it WON'T be changed.

[Charon]

We are just realistic, a ban would never happen in this country. Great it works for you but our country isn't open to it and never would be. A few weeks from now people will forget about this and the outrage will be over, sad but true.

Yeah, no amount of debate is going to change the fact that we have the RIGHT to have guns, and it WON'T be changed.

I am aware that it will never change, and I am aware that you think the constitution gives you the rights to swing guns around as you see fit. I am simply putting across a counter argument which is falling on deaf ears.

I don't live in America and I never plan on living in America for any length of time. You want to shoot each other to pieces? It's all good with me. I am just stating my opinion on guns and their use in general.

[Xanatos]

There are shootings all the time in the UK. It's mostly gang related. It rarely makes the headlines. If children aren't the victims the media tend not to make much mention of it.

Banning guns does not REMOVE gun violence, but it does LESSEN it. This is a good thing. And could be the first stepping stone to less and less gun violence.

The Bill of rights doesn't give anyone the right to bear arms in the way the current constitution does. Please don't confuse the two, it makes you seem foolish.

And why is a racist allowed to admin at CoHGuru? "Nappy Head Ho's" indeed.:eyebrow:

[Tarberetta]

I didn't say I was a vigilante, and I didn't even say I have a CCW, let alone a gun.

The thing about CCW is you carry it and hope to god you never have to use it.

I'm just looking at this based on what already has happened. Countries with banned guns tend, on average, to have higher violent crime than those that don't. Maybe the method of violent crime is different, but the results are the same. The argument that "ZOMG he wouldn't have a gun if they were banned" just dosen't stand up to a reality check. Even there in england, don't they still have gun crime? Even though it's illegal? May not have "massacres" but gun crimes still happen.

Reminds me of the hysteria about plane crashes. Way more people die in car crashes than plane crashes, yet we don't have a huge outcry over car crashes than we do about plane crashes.

Gun control is a good idea that just dosen't work, period. Simple fact, where guns are banned, there is still gun crime. That's it.

It would be nice if we lived in a world where there was no violent crime, etc. Fact is we do. All of us. That's just how it is. And for a real mind bender, even the police over in the UK can't carry guns, right? What if the same laws in the UK were here? What if the police were also unarmed? Then what? Who would have stopped this guy?

[suburbanhell]

And why is a racist allowed to admin at CoHGuru? "Nappy Head Ho's" indeed.:eyebrow:

OH FOR ****'S SAKE!!!

Are you really that dense?

[Bitter Babe]

And why is a racist allowed to admin at CoHGuru? "Nappy Head Ho's" indeed.:eyebrow:

Take your personal problems with Burby out of this thread because we all know that is what it's about.

[Blackbat]

And why is a racist allowed to admin at CoHGuru? "Nappy Head Ho's" indeed.:eyebrow:

That quote is part of a scandal currently going on here in the US regarding a popular radio show host. He was just using that quote as a example. At least that was my take on it.

[Tarberetta]

And why is a racist allowed to admin at CoHGuru? "Nappy Head Ho's" indeed.:eyebrow:

It is racist because of the statement, or just because a white person said it?
Would you still view it as racist if say, SK said it?

If you said all around no matter who said it, congrats to you and many could learn from your example.

[suburbanhell]

That quote is part of a scandal currently going on here in the US regarding a popular morning radio show host. He was just using that quote as a example. At least that was my take on it.

Precisely. Thank you Bats.

[Charon]

Gun control is a good idea that just dosen't work, period.
Heh, when people start using opinion as fact, I start to worry for the debate...

[Bitter Babe]

The Bill of rights doesn't give anyone the right to bear arms in the way the current constitution does. Please don't confuse the two, it makes you seem foolish.



Again, some people don't interpret the constitution the same as you and I do. Some people take that statement to mean they can do whatever they want to and for years now the government has allowed them to think that.

[Xanatos]

Oh right I thought it was something burby said on his show. LoL my bad. And I don't have a problem with burby for the record.

Sorry for the derail.

[Bitter Babe]

Its okay, and no Burby wouldn't say that on his show LOL

Anyway back to guns!! :guntoot:

[Tarberetta]

I am simply putting across a counter argument which is falling on deaf ears.

Nah, I hear your argument. It's just the same old argument I've heard for years (and I do mean years) regarding guns and gun control in general. No disrespect meant, I used to think the same things you do. The difference in what we "would" like to happen versus what "does" happen has convinced me otherwise.

[suburbanhell]

Its okay, and no Burby wouldn't say that on his show LOL

Anyway back to guns!! :guntoot:

If I ever said it on my show it would be to discuss the fact that it WAS said on a radio show, I wouldn't have even thought to come up with such a term when discussing a women's basketball team on my own.

[Bitter Babe]

It's a good argument Charon, however, it's just that our country isn't ready for those steps and probably never will be. Heck the laws even vary state by state. I could probably buy something in New Hampshire that I can't here in Massachusetts.

[Solos]

Can someone please tell me why you think you need to own guns to stop your country getting invaded? I still don't understand how something designed to stop the british coming back over in their ships and ruining your **** applies to 2007.


But hey, as long as i live here i doubt i'll even see a gun as i'm not a black youth living in London or a farmer.

[suburbanhell]

Can someone please tell me why you think you need to own guns to stop your country getting invaded? I still don't understand how something designed to stop the british coming back over in their ships and ruining your **** applies to 2007.

It was one of the 10 rules we built the country on, it applied then and it applies now. Any country that would dare invade us would have one **** of a fight on it's hands. And look, no country has tried.

[Solos]

It was one of the 10 rules we built the country on, it applied then and it applies now. Any country that would dare invade us would have one **** of a fight on it's hands.


Yeah, because you have a standing army. Don't you have amendments and stuff? Why can't it be updated to apply to a change in circumstances? A couple of the Ten Commandments were stupid but we don't follow them to the letter even though our country is Christian.

[RedSwitchblade]

Who cares? If you take away the guns it's just one less means of killing people. If they decide to do it with a knife they decide to do it with a knife, but it's a lot more clumsy and impractical for killing large numbers of people.

Guns are killing machines. Nothing else.

Agreed.

Though my one thought about this quote though:

When a guy comes into a school with a homemade bomb or a few grenades, wouldn't it be nice to... shoot him? You can outlaw guns, and rifles, and other firearms... but there's still a ton of ways to endanger a lot of people at once. And I for one would feel better knowing that, well, I can kill that person without them knowing its coming.

Guns for the common man? Nah.

Guns for the designated authority to protect me? Sure.

And for laughter's sake, a few quotes from my favorite TV show, "Titus"

Christopher Titus: It should be a law. Everyone should have to own a gun. In fact, if you get caught outside your house without your gun, you get a ticket. And you get shot in the leg. Just to prove their point.
Christopher Titus: Think about it. There'd be no more car jackings.
Tommy Shafter: [Tommy's car is being robbed, the carjacker shouts "Get out of the car!", Tommy shoots the carjacker] Get out of the street!
Christopher Titus: Bag boys would be more courteous.
Ken Titus: [Ken is at the supermarket and shoots the clerk] It's canned goods first, then bagged goods!
Christopher Titus: And people in general would just be a lot friendlier.
Erin Fitzpatrick: [shooting a guy at the bank ATM] No cuts!
Christopher Titus: I want everybody to get behind this law. Because the first couple of years, [swallows hard] a lot of us are gonna die!

[seeing a man with a rifle at a gun store]
Christopher Titus (age 5): I want a gun, Dad.
Ken Titus: You don't need a gun, son. The men in our family have penises.

I <3 that show.

[Poison]

I understand Blackbat's oppinion when he says that he wants a gun if everybody else can have one.
But doesn't that mean that nobody would need a gun, if nobody had one?

Legalized guns in the US have lead to a situation there similar to the Cold War, IMO: they have the bomb, you need the bomb. It'll take another Gorbatschow and Reagan to work against the downward spiral of arms race.

[Tarberetta]

Can someone please tell me why you think you need to own guns to stop your country getting invaded? I still don't understand how something designed to stop the british coming back over in their ships and ruining your **** applies to 2007.


But hey, as long as i live here i doubt i'll even see a gun as i'm not a black youth living in London or a farmer.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't about the british coming back, because guns were ok then anyway. The intent was mostly to keep our own government in check.

Nowadays as far as I'm concerned, guns still have a use in self-defense (even though they are used just as often for offensive purposes). Therefore, weither a threat from abroad or on our own soil, we have the right to bear arms for self defense. After all, that's why it's illegal to shoot someone unless it's in self defense (and even then sometimes not depending on how far each states "duty to retreat" statue reads, it at all)

[Bitter Babe]

I don't think it's that we need to, because you are right I doubt we will be getting invaded. It's the way that people interpret it. This explains the different ways people interpret the meaning of the constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html

[Tarberetta]

I understand Blackbat's oppinion when he says that he wants a gun if everybody else can have one.
But doesn't that mean that nobody would need a gun, if nobody had one?


That's the problem. You can ban guns with a stack of laws thicker than the US Tax code and people will still find a way to get (and kill) with guns. Only now the people that have them are mostly out to use them for ill-intent, whereas joe average just wanted one to defend his family.

[Bitter Babe]

Legalized guns in the US have lead to a situation there similar to the Cold War, IMO: they have the bomb, you need the bomb. It'll take another Gorbatschow and Reagan to work against the downward spiral of arms race.

It's kind of like a screaming child who sees some other kid with a toy and then wants thats toy too mentality

[Enlightened One]

I'm personally waiting for them to make death illegal so I'm forced to live forever or rot in prison as a festering corpse.

Really - guns are not the problem here. The problem is the person behind the gun, what is wrong with them, and if we can fix it. One hopes there is a fix for the maladies that afflict them but it is highly unlikely that violent crime - publicized or forgotten about by next morning is going to vanish soon despite penned in laws.

And given that the race is a bunch of differently evolved primates who managed to build nation-states from beginning in trees and before that, oceans, one hopes for our eventual civilization. To quote Ghandi, after a fashion.

[Grae Knight]

When I owned a gun, I owned it for sporting reasons. I enjoyed shooting the gun at a firing range. My Father owned a gun for hunting. He enjoyed to hunt. To be honest, self-defense has never entered my mind when I purchased my first gun or fired my first gun. I will stand by the arguement, creating new gun laws is not the answer...enforce the current ones.

[Plasma Wisp]

Thats the problem. When you make something Illegal, those that really want it, will get it. Hence why there is a drug problem.

You want pot, you go and find someone selling it.
You want sex, you go and find someone selling it.
You want gun, you go and find someone selling it.

If you have money and want something bad enough, you can eventually buy it.

In the career I want to go in, I will learn about how desperate people will get to want something.

[Solario]

There is gun control now and it's obviously not working. Unfortunately this person was a very disturbed individual, however, he was able to pass a background check, waiting period and still get two guns. If he wasn't able to get it legally I'm sure he would have gotten it illegally.

People should have their guns locked away in a safe place but that's not always the case.

Who says if take away guns people won't start buy more knives and stabbing people?

It's a lot harder to stab 32 than to shot them. And illegal guns are around because they're stolen legal guns. If all guns were illegal, the supply of illegal arms would be minimized.

And hiding behind the 2nd amendment is so inane. If we were to depend solely on that in its original form then A. women and black people couldn't vote and B. atheists wouldn't be able to hold any governing position and a lot more. It's a outdated document that was initially meant to be revised every couple of years, not considered the guideline for end-all-democracy.


And bombs are quite a bit hard to manufacture and detonate properly. So if the Columbine boys had done that instead there's greater chance of it A. not working or B. blowing up when they were making it.

And unlike cars, guns only have one purpose. It's a ****ing death stick. This whole "everyone should own a gun to protect themselves," while entertaining in a "Peace by Compulsion" mindspace, doesn't really work when owning a gun means the chance of shooting someone innocent, or specifically family, 43 times.


Anyway, how about starting out with putting serious restriction on ammo purchase and ammo ownership? It's a lot harder to be a massmurderer when you're out of ammo. Of course, this is really hard to enforce, but still.

[razoras]

I feel this hasn't been said enough: When it was written, the 2nd Amendment wasn't about keeping the populace armed to fight off the British or even personal safety.

It's a right to bear arms against our own government should we need to. It was recognized that the government could become a threat to it's own people, so the gov't got the proverbial sword dangling above it's head. Get out of line... become the very thing we warred to be free from, and the people would fix you with bullets and gunpowder.

Even though it makes me sound a little crazy to say so, I've been feeling lately that we're approaching that point. Too bad even a pistol is so damn expensive and my budget goes towards computer equipment.

[suburbanhell]

Yeah, because you have a standing army. Don't you have amendments and stuff? Why can't it be updated to apply to a change in circumstances? A couple of the Ten Commandments were stupid but we don't follow them to the letter even though our country is Christian.

Ammendments to the Constitution, sure, via a 2/3rds vote of both the house and senate, but I am pretty sure the Bill of Rights is unbreakable.

[Enlightened One]

Even though it makes me sound a little crazy to say so, I've been feeling lately that we're approaching that point. Too bad even a pistol is so damn expensive and my budget goes towards computer equipment.

You're not too crazy...

[suburbanhell]

I'm personally waiting for them to make death illegal so I'm forced to live forever or rot in prison as a festering corpse.

I'm personally hoping for the opposite, that the death penalty becomes legal across the country. There are too many prisons that are overfull of people who CAN'T be reformed. Why waste the space allowing someone to eat 3 squares a day, have exercise time, free cable, a free place to live, a free education, when all they're going to do when they get out is commit another crime. The reformables are one thing but those you KNOW CAN'T be reformed, off 'em, we're better off without them on the planet anyway.

[razoras]

Ammendments to the Constitution, sure, via a 2/3rds vote of both the house and senate, but I am pretty sure the Bill of Rights is unbreakable.

The Bill of Rights is simple a group of original amendments. They're totally changeable... but that would amount to such an incredible taboo this country will never see it.


Edit: Regarding the death penalty, I think recent history has shown that we are still too innacurate to have it. Until we get 100% accuracy and there is 0% an innocent man is going to be executed, I'd much rather have my taxes go towards feeding criminals than potentially murdering innocents.

[suburbanhell]

Thats the problem. When you make something Illegal, those that really want it, will get it. Hence why there is a drug problem.

You want pot, you go and find someone selling it.
You want sex, you go and find someone selling it.
You want gun, you go and find someone selling it.

If you have money and want something bad enough, you can eventually buy it.

Agreed. Pot & Sex are legal in Amsterdam right? How many drug crimes and sex crimes happen in that country as a result? I bet a hell of a lot less than here.

The war on drugs is a farce, another huge waste of my money when a child rapist can go to jail for 7 years but someone caught with too much pot goes in for life. Also, prostitution would be SAFER for more Americans if it was regulated than the way it is now.

[suburbanhell]

You're not too crazy...

He's not crazy at all.

[suburbanhell]

The Bill of Rights is simple a group of original amendments. They're totally changeable... but that would amount to such an incredible taboo this country will never see it.

Ok I stand corrected, I thought for sure the first 10 ammendments, the bill of rights, was completely unbreakable but the rest of the constitution was able to change via a 2/3rds vote.

[razoras]

While technically that is incorrect Burbs, there's no way anyone will ever touch the Bill of Rights. So it's still accurate if you look at things realistically.

[suburbanhell]

True, true.

[Dr Jack Wolfe]

I don't understand why people defending themselves 200 years ago applies today. Don't you have the largest military in the world? Who is going to invade you? For that matter, if there is an army powerful enough to overcome your army, what makes you think some hick with a rifle will save you? I don't understand why you still need guns.
No, that would be china, just the largest budget.


" The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

In the two years since Dan Rather was so roundly rebuked, violence in England has gotten markedly worse. Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year's Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice."

So it sounds like that gun control is working for the British.


You know that first amendment was written when there wasn't a world wide web full of dangerous ideas. Clearly the founding fathers didn't mean for that silly 1st amendment to get so out of control. I mean look at the movies, tv, music and video games around today.

Come to think of it, the 4th is kinda problematic too. Hell and the 5th, 6th and 7th make the judicial process a bit too long. Some people don't like 13. Hell lets just do a way with them all because there are so many stupid people in the country and you the people on the coasts could run it better anyway.

You want to take the 2nd amendment out, all you gotta do is get a 66% vote in both houses and ratification by75% of the states.

I wish I was saying this with more then sarcasm then I am, but I beginning to think people today would seriously assault all of those Rights. (yes rights, not privileges like voting.) I'm not sure how the pro choice, gay marriage, don't interfere in our lives types do not see the hypocrisy of being anti gun, politically correct speak, censor ,dvd, movies, books, video games we don't like types.


There are currently over 20,000 gun laws on the books. How about we enforce a couple first.

[Solario]

Edit: Regarding the death penalty, I think recent history has shown that we are still too innacurate to have it. Until we get 100% accuracy and there is 0% an innocent man is going to be executed, I'd much rather have my taxes go towards feeding criminals than potentially murdering innocents.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Capital Punishment is a lot more expensive and resource draining than life imprisonment; A 1991 study of the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at $2,316,655. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000.

But anyway, I'm pretty sure that when banning alcohol, pot and prostitution is banning something primarily used for recreation and entertainment, guns are in a different catagory. At least, I hope so.

[Charon]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
There goes the neighbourhood.

Since I've come to the conclusion that you, Jack, are completely incapable of having any kind of civil conversation on matters like this (similarly to Vendel, actually,) I'll back out of this one before he turns up as well and this thread blows into something I don't even want to read.

Happy debating, folks.

[Bitter Babe]

It's a lot harder to stab 32 than to shot them. And illegal guns are around because they're stolen legal guns. If all guns were illegal, the supply of illegal arms would be minimized.


I wasn't talking about massacres in general, I am talking about every day murders that happen in this country.

[Dr Jack Wolfe]

I am aware that it will never change, and I am aware that you think the constitution gives you the rights to swing guns around as you see fit. I am simply putting across a counter argument which is falling on deaf ears.

I don't live in America and I never plan on living in America for any length of time. You want to shoot each other to pieces? It's all good with me. I am just stating my opinion on guns and their use in general.

Uh we KNOW the Constitution gives us the right to own guns, sorry there have been court cases and everything.

I get real tired of hearing this stereotype, we are not running around shooting up the joint. Sorry to disillusion you. Pretty safe place really, most of us will never be directly involved in a gun crime. Hell most of us will never be involved in crime at all.

[razoras]

What! You mean we can own guns and only 1% (in reality, significantly less, I believe?) of our population actually commits crimes. OMG!

[Dr Jack Wolfe]

There goes the neighbourhood.

Since I've come to the conclusion that you, Jack, are completely incapable of having any kind of civil conversation on matters like this (similarly to Vendel, actually,) I'll back out of this one before he turns up as well and this thread blows into something I don't even want to read.

Happy debating, folks.

Uh ok. Don't like other opinions...got it.

[Solario]

I wasn't talking about massacres in general, I am talking about every day murders that happen in this country.

Yeah, but it's still quite a bit harder killing someone when you're covered in their blood, hearing their breathing and heart beat and looking into their eyes as they go dead.


And well... Two guys ****ing and getting married or a girl deciding she doesn't want a baby doesn't affect me at all, where as someone waving a gun around or censoring my movies and books does.

And I don't get where you get your sources, but according to the British Crime Survey organisation, all forms of crime have gone down since 1995, and violent ones by almost half.

[Charon]

Uh ok. Don't like other opinions...got it.
You'll have seen me debating with people about their opinions for the duration of this thread. I just don't like debating with people who back up their opinions by telling people to '**** off' and by using derogatory terms. If you don't know what I'm talking about I suggest you re-read my original thread on the Virginia Tech shootings and your ludicrous replies there.

[Bitter Babe]

Yeah, but it's still quite a bit harder killing someone when you're covered in their blood, hearing their breathing and heart beat and looking into their eyes as they go dead.


And well... Two guys ****ing and getting married or a girl deciding she doesn't want a baby doesn't affect me at all, where as someone waving a gun around or censoring my movies and books does.

And I don't get where you get your sources, but according to the British Crime Survey organisation, all forms of crime have gone down since 1995, and violent ones by almost half.

Well true usually stabbings are crimes of passions where shootings are not. I was just saying you take away guns and then people will still find another way to kill someone if they want to that badly.

[Tarberetta]

There goes the neighbourhood.

Since I've come to the conclusion that you, Jack, are completely incapable of having any kind of civil conversation on matters like this (similarly to Vendel, actually,) I'll back out of this one before he turns up as well and this thread blows into something I don't even want to read.

Happy debating, folks.

Says the gentleman who quotes what people say with "blah blah blah" (you did it to me too). Look, you have an opposing viewpoint, that's fine. Try to have some dignity in replying to people, please.

[Charon]

Says the gentleman who quotes what people say with "blah blah blah" (you did it to me too). Look, you have an opposing viewpoint, that's fine. Try to have some dignity in replying to people, please.
I used that in your case to show that I had cut off the start and ending of a sentence. With Jack, I did it because I wanted to show that he'd come into the thread, not anything in particular that he said.

And I think you'll find all my replies in this thread have been completely dignified and have not degraded to the kind of argument that Jack was presenting in the original Virginia Tech thread, which is what I take issue with.

I don't mind what opinion you have, or if you have an opposing viewpoint. What I take issue with is the way in which Jack conducted himself in the Virginia Tech thread, and the way I'm sure he will eventually conduct himself in this one. We have already taken that to PMs, however, so there was no real need for you to wade in on the matter.

[Dr Jack Wolfe]

You know man I would suggest you do same. I explained my reasons for reacting that way, not do I think that ONE reply was representative of my time on this board. I"ll even admit I wasn't real happy with my reaction.

You have more problems with people on this board then I have. Further more I at least considered the idea that maybe I was and am to caught up in myself and was being a bit short sighted.

I know I'm not a great, lovable, teddy bear of a person. I know I'm loud and opinionated and a defensive ass. Do you have that clear of vision of yourself.?

Don't have to like me, I sorta wish you all would, but you don't. I'll survive. BUT what about the increase in crime in Britain since it became clear the good people wouldn't be able to pull a gun on the robber.

[razoras]

Okay, I think we're done yelling at eachother. Resume discussion.

[Solario]

Well true usually stabbings are crimes of passions where shootings are not. I was just saying you take away guns and then people will still find another way to kill someone if they want to that badly.

Oh, I definitely agree there, but it would mean a great decrease in accidents, murders and the sort.

[T!M]

Uh we KNOW the Constitution gives us the right to own guns, sorry there have been court cases and everything.

I get real tired of hearing this stereotype, we are not running around shooting up the joint. Sorry to disillusion you. Pretty safe place really, most of us will never be directly involved in a gun crime. Hell most of us will never be involved in crime at all.

QFT

[Solos]

No, that would be china, just the largest budget.


" The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

In the two years since Dan Rather was so roundly rebuked, violence in England has gotten markedly worse. Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year's Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice."

So it sounds like that gun control is working for the British.


You know that first amendment was written when there wasn't a world wide web full of dangerous ideas. Clearly the founding fathers didn't mean for that silly 1st amendment to get so out of control. I mean look at the movies, tv, music and video games around today.

Come to think of it, the 4th is kinda problematic too. Hell and the 5th, 6th and 7th make the judicial process a bit too long. Some people don't like 13. Hell lets just do a way with them all because there are so many stupid people in the country and you the people on the coasts could run it better anyway.

You want to take the 2nd amendment out, all you gotta do is get a 66% vote in both houses and ratification by75% of the states.

I wish I was saying this with more then sarcasm then I am, but I beginning to think people today would seriously assault all of those Rights. (yes rights, not privileges like voting.) I'm not sure how the pro choice, gay marriage, don't interfere in our lives types do not see the hypocrisy of being anti gun, politically correct speak, censor ,dvd, movies, books, video games we don't like types.


There are currently over 20,000 gun laws on the books. How about we enforce a couple first.

We have a lower murder rate. How does that mean gun control doesn't work?

I don't know what all the ammendments added.

Nobody is going to kill someone by having an abortion* or being gay. Having easy access to guns makes killing someone a lot easier. If somebody could prove that banning Reservoir Dogs would notably lower the murder rate i would support it as well.

*I don't consider a clump of cells to be a person so nobody say that abortion kills someone. Not getting pregnant every month would be murder by that logic.

[Charon]

Don't have to like me, I sorta wish you all would, but you don't. I'll survive. BUT what about the increase in crime in Britain since it became clear the good people wouldn't be able to pull a gun on the robber.
I had no problem with you until you blew up in a thread designed for condolences.

And yes, I know I can come across as a sarcastic, snide bastard from time to time, and yes I have known this for a long while.

As for the crime rate, I haven't researched it myself but from what Solario tells me, violent crime has dropped and he can't see where you're getting your sources from.

Anyway, stepping out of this debate for several reasons, one of which being that I don't want to cause hostility with certain members elsewhere on the board which I'm sure will develop if this continues.

[Bitter Babe]

We have a lower murder rate. How does that mean gun control doesn't work?

I don't know what all the ammendments added.

Nobody is going to kill someone by having an abortion* or being gay. Having easy access to guns makes killing someone a lot easier. If somebody could prove that banning Reservoir Dogs would notably lower the murder rate i would support it as well.

*I don't consider a clump of cells to be a person so nobody say that abortion kills someone. Not getting pregnant every month would be murder by that logic.

That's not true at all. Doctors have been killed because they perform abortions. Gay men/women have been beaten, etc. and killed because they are gay in this country. We have a population that is rather open to different ideas, etc and then we have others who are not at all.

[razoras]

Oh, I definitely agree there, but it would mean a great decrease in accidents, murders and the sort.

In weapon-related accidents, I'm with you. There'd be a great decrease. Of a number that is fairly insignificant in the first place.

Murders decrease? Highly unlikely. You'll have less massacres but murders will not likely decrease even noticeably. Murder doesn't happen because it's easy.

[Solos]

That's not true at all. Doctors have been killed because they perform abortions. Gay men/women have been beaten, etc. and killed because they are gay in this country. We have a population that is rather open to different ideas, etc and then we have others who are not at all.

That was a pretty good dig at bigots but i said "by", implying the person having the abortion or getting gay married would be killing someone else. :p

[Bitter Babe]

Oopsy LOL sorry I read that too fast :)

I'm not trying to take a dig at anyone, just telling the truth that this country is very split when it comes to a lot of things and usually we can't debate anything civilly.

[T!M]

Gun control and violence in video games are usually always brought up after a tragic event. It's common for people to point a finger at a media rather then the people that are pulling the trigger. I guess they want to find the reason behind the reason....or something instead of just holding the person acountable.

I think it might help a sliver. But if someone wants to kill another person, they'll find a means to get a hold of a gun. Guns are trafficked all over the world.

[Solos]

"Guns don't kill people, rappers do."


I support Chris Rock's idea of making a bullet cost $5000. If you need to defend yourself then you'd be able to but if you want to go shooting up your university you'd have to get a second job.

[razoras]

If someone is insane or psychopathic enough to actually try to kill dozens of people, too, then it's highly likely they WILL go through the effort required to get a gun or explosives to do the job.

When someone massacres people, we can't try to reason out why someone would do something unless we know what broke in their head in the first place. Columbine, and most likely VT, weren't perpetrated by some downtrodden geeks who got bullied too much. (http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/) This kind of thing is just about always premeditated and rationalized and quite planned.

Edit: $5000 bullet proprosed by Christ Rock is a pretty awesome idea, yeah.

[Solario]

In weapon-related accidents, I'm with you. There'd be a great decrease. Of a number that is fairly insignificant in the first place.

Murders decrease? Highly unlikely. You'll have less massacres but murders will not likely decrease even noticeably. Murder doesn't happen because it's easy.

Yeah, but it does make it harder to disassociate what happened if you're right there in close quarters with it.

And yeah, ammo restriction and ammo control is a great idea.

[Dr Jack Wolfe]

This link is where I stole my quote

http://www.reason.com/

This link debunks the study from the first link, attributing the increase in to better and different reporting. But they are rivals This link contends that the first link is wrong because the author of the first used the Police reported crime index instead of a survey of the general populace.

http://timlambert.org/2002/10/malcolm/

Here is the link to the BCS surveys.

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics/statistics28.htm

which many argue trend low, its gathering method is

"The BCS questions a sample of the population. The sample size for this survey is bigger than ever before, however it is important to remember that because it is based on a sample, the figures may contain some level of inconsistency."

So you know decide. I will agree that violent crime ie rape and murder has gone down. But robbery and burglary is up.

Either way, you can't have my gun.

[razoras]

Yeah, but it does make it harder to disassociate what happened if you're right there in close quarters with it..

See, I'm not sure I agree. If I'm already at the point where I'm not giving a second thought about taking someone's life, it's not going to make a difference how close up I am to my victim. I've ALREADY disassociated, and the weapon I'm using had nothing to do with it.

[Remianen]

It's unbreakable logic. A guy massacred a bunch of people with an assault rifle, so they were banned. Another guy massacred a bunch of people with a handgun so they were banned. No one massacres people here anymore. It just doesn't happen.

Unbreakable logic my ass!

Charon, tell me this. Are people in the UK the same as people in the United States? Do we have the same values? Do our societies operate the same (or similarly in ANY way)?

If the answer to any of the above posed questions is 'no', your logic is broken wide open.

You think that's rubbish, you're entitled to your opinion. You think "people are people" regardless of the societies they are reared in, I would disagree.


Lemme give you the perspective of someone who has actually been involved in gun running. Ban guns and the people who want them will still be able to get them. Y'see, Melty is wise. You need to ENFORCE laws or they become meaningless. Remember the assault weapons ban of 1994? Even while that was active, I could STILL get my hands on an AR-15 or AK-47 or MAC-11 if I so chose. Why? Because the ATF is not nearly well-funded enough to deal with all the thousands of greedy, unscrupulous gun dealers that exist in this country and the runners they do business with. Greed. It's what's for dinner (breakfast and lunch too).

I always love how some UK folks will try to imply "American society is exactly the same as ours!!!" when anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see how false that is. Do your police carry guns as standard equipment? (generally, no). How well would that work in the US?

Charon, you're living in fantasy land. Lemme tell you as someone intimately familiar with "criminals" (current and former) - they network. Right now, I have zero idea of where I could get a Desert Eagle illegally (my info is woefully out of date, and rightfully so). But it'd take me a day to find out (if that). You're acting like criminals sharing information ("5-0 covered [plainclothes cops] cruising up by Wilson Ave") is unusual. Are you nuts? The person who leads the buyer to the seller often gets a "finder's fee". OR, they get the weapon themselves and sell it to them at a markup. Is this news to you?

Lemme wrap this up because I think I'm bordering on a rant, having had to tell people from Kent, Birmingham, and Manchester that they have ZERO clue about how American society works. Just like I have ZERO clue on how UK society works (because a) I didn't grow up in UK society, b) I don't live in UK society and c) all I hear about UK society is 2nd hand (TV, friends, internet)). Banning guns penalizes the wrong people. While it's true that a can of paint thinner (turpentine) and a book of matches can kill, it's not as quick, dirty, or impersonal (as EO alluded to) as using a larger, more assertive instrument. The assault weapons ban expired in 2004 (or somewhere thereabouts) and I know for a fact (having laid eyes on the guns in question) that that law had ZERO impact on the flow of these weapons in black market terms. Wanna know why? Because the law banned the guns themselves, it didn't ban the PARTS used to assemble the gun. So many chopshops (you know, the places where stolen cars are taken to be broken down into less traceable PARTS?) hired out and reassembled guns that had been purchased in pieces. As one of those 'value added' services, they were even nice enough to shave off any and all serial numbers. In addition to that, there were still hundreds of thousands of these guns that had been produced (and stockpiled) prior to the law taking effect that were still floating around the ether. The only change was that the street price of the guns shot up (pun intended), which isn't much of a problem for someone looking for one and unable to get it otherwise.

Mind you, I'm ambivalent about the whole issue. I have several guns in the house and I haven't even laid eyes on them in over 5 years (they're locked away and given the other implements in the house, I don't think I'd need them to defend myself in the house). But I know from experience that laws with no teeth are meaningless. So you ban guns. Now the police have to go to every LEGAL gun owner and confiscate their weapons. Do you realize how long that's going to take?!? (YEARS!) Where will those police come from? Do you take them off the street to have them do pickup duty? What happens when/if you do? :P

PS:
And illegal guns are around because they're stolen legal guns.

Patently false. Tell me, if someone legally buys a gun, sells it for twice what they paid for it, then reports it lost, was that gun stolen? Then again, I forgot that everyone with an FFL (Federal Firearms License) is a candidate for sainthood. :rolleyes:


Apologies in advance if this comes off in too pointed a fashion. I've just spent two days trying to explain to some UK, Austrian, Canadian, and Aussie/Kiwi friends and clients that just because John Howard got a gun ban passed doesn't mean that **** would EVER fly on these shores, and why. And why a ban would make little to no difference, really.

[Stalking Shadow]

In Switzerland, where everyone has an assault rifle in the attic, you have very little gun crime. Why? Because ammo is freely distributed. What? How does that work?

The ammo is distributed in sealed boxes, and the boxes are serialized and inspected every year. If a seal is broken, questions are asked.

I've always thought this was a neat compromise to letting people have a gun in the home to defend themselves from Joe Whackjob.


But that's not my point, because I have nothing to back it up in the way of statistics or even actual laws. If someone wants to look into it, go ahead.

I'd like to ask burbs and tarberetta to show me when Joe Average have used a gun kept at home to protect their families/property. Not as a deterrent, as an active defense. I want proof of concept.

[Poison]

Just wanted to throw in that the ammo control/ammo price thing is a great idea and would be far more realizable than suddenly making guns illegal.

Oh, and Mexico has a solution:
In an ambitiously noble effort to cut down the enveloping surge of drugs-related violence running amok throughout the crime-addled streets of Mexico City, chief of police Joel Ortega has announced that anyone prepared to surrender a high-calibre weapon, such as a machine gun, will receive a free computer in exchange. And, perhaps in the interests of scale and fair play, anyone turning in a smaller calibre handgun will be presented with either cash remuneration or an Xbox videogame console.
Link (http://tech.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1284564.php/Mexico_City_offering_computer_hardware_for_surrend ered_guns)

[Bitter Babe]

We have gun buyback programs that gift cash or gift cards, yes it gets some off the streets but not nearly as many as are out there.

[suburbanhell]

Yeah but even that has flaws in it, it's not like the guns are melted down and recycled into other metal, most of the time they're refurbished and re-sold.

[Bitter Babe]

No, the ones the Boston PD gets are melted down, a police department collecting them isn't going to refurbish and resell guns they are trying to get off the street.

[Dr Jack Wolfe]

Yeah, actually in LA they do melt them down, but that is the PD run programs. I know there are private, church run programs, that may not turn the guns over to authorities.

[Bitter Babe]

Yeah most of the ones here are run with a church group and the police. The last one they had they were giving away Target gift cards that had some good money on them.

[Dr Jack Wolfe]

"Nobody is going to kill someone by having an abortion* or being gay. Having easy access to guns makes killing someone a lot easier. If somebody could prove that banning Reservoir Dogs would notably lower the murder rate i would support it as well. "

That last sentence is scarier to me then the idea of the gun ban, and pretty much why the US has a 2nd amendment.

[suburbanhell]

No, the ones the Boston PD gets are melted down, a police department collecting them isn't going to refurbish and resell guns they are trying to get off the street.

Melted down and turned into new guns. :P Seriously though if you actually TRACK what happens to a lot of these gun buybacks I'm willing to bet many of them don't really work as people would hope they do.

[Dr Jack Wolfe]

Probably not guns, to obvious...AMMO that would the irony. :)

[razoras]

Would be ironic, but don't bullets generally get made with cheaper or light-weight metals like aluminum or copper while guns are iron and steel?

[Dr Jack Wolfe]

Depends copper is still most common I think. A frightening amount of guns these days are cheap metals or worse yet impact plastics with only a few steel parts.

[MiMiC]

Don't know if anyone's said this (reading through 40 pages is...meh) but, here in Virginia all you really have to do is show a valid ID to get a flippin' gun.

From what my dad told me (he's an ex-law enforcement officer) this state is a biggie with people running guns up and down the East coast.

Echoing other sentiments, I don't see what the average citizen needs with a hand-gun, semi-automatic, etc. A hunting rifle - okay I can see that but, I think the bigger, badder stuff really should only be used for Law Enforcement or Military. I mean I've made it 38 years through life without owning a gun *shrug* If I want to collect something, I'll do stamps, or comic books, or exotic bladed weapons.

[suburbanhell]

Welcome to the forums. :lmao:

[Dr Jack Wolfe]

Hunting vs Assault weapon. Not a huge difference these days.

This is an M1 Garand, U.S. armed forces weapon up to mid 60s

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Garand.jpg

Basically a 30.06 8 round weapon. semi automatic . You can pick these up in most states.

This is a Winchester 7400

http://www.remington.com/images/products/firearms/centerfire/smsil_7400s.jpg

4 round 30.06 weapon. But you can buy 7 round clips for it in most states.

Neither is as sexy, nor has the clip capacity of the assault weapons, but both do the same thing and can be modified to auto. Both take about 5 secs to reload and both can use modified 30 round clips.

If your gonna ban assault weapons then do it on function not shape. A single or 3 shot bolt action or a shotgun should be enough for hunters. IMO

Welcome to the board MiMiC we are a contentious bunch but generally agreeable. And you picked a hell of a topic for a first post ;)

[Bitter Babe]

I did read that Virginia has very lax laws on obtaining guns, this guy didn't have to go through a background check, I just thought that was the norm everywhere.

[Dr Jack Wolfe]

He did, just no waiting period. There is a federal database that is checked when you buy a gun. Its about as quick as your credit report and about as thorough, won't catch liars though. Several states only require that to buy a weapon. In some states concealed carry permits are that easy too. Other states have cooling off periods. The theory being if you need a gun now, you don't need a gun. Rifles and shotguns pretty much are not checked. Although that may have changed since I bought my last shotgun.

[coldcut]

Wrote this, then deleted it, then decided I'd written too much to delete. It's not exactly comprehensive, but says more or less what I want to say.

I'd like to put this to all of you anti-gun control folks, and I'd like you to actually read it and take in what I'm saying... Because, as far as I'm concerned, this is infallible logic.

Guns were once legal with a license in the United Kingdom. Gun laws were similar to America except we had no constitutional right to bear arms in an organised militia to stop them from being banned. There were gun clubs, many people owned firearms, and as such there was a risk that somebody would use them for the wrong purpose.

On August 19, 1987, the Hungerford Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_Massacre) occured. Michael Ryan shot sixteen people including his mother and then shot himself on a rampage in the village of Hungerford. In the weeks and months afterwards, legislation was passed which banned the ownership of all assault rifles and put restrictions on the use and ownership of shotguns.

A few years passed, until 1996. On March 13, Thomas Hamilton committed the Dunblane Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre), in which he walked into a Primary School and killed sixteen children, one adult and then himself. In the weeks and months afterwards, legislation was passed that banned the use of handguns, and further restricted the ownership and use of rifles and shotguns.

The next time... wait a minute, there wasn't a next time. There is no way for the average psycho in this country to lay their hands on a gun... And believe me, massacres are a lot harder when you're armed with nothing but a kitchen knife.

It's unbreakable logic. A guy massacred a bunch of people with an assault rifle, so they were banned. Another guy massacred a bunch of people with a handgun so they were banned. No one massacres people here anymore. It just doesn't happen.

I'm not going to read 15 pages of this to see if there was a coherent response here. The five pages I read were already a bit lacking.

Basically, you're right, and we're right. Gun control is absolutely the right policy for England, and a great deal of Western Europe. It works because there are a lot less guns in England, and a lot less territory to put them in. Europe also operates under a great deal more civil control than the United States. And there's just a lot less crime in general there, excluding firearms completely. Property crimes are generally lower, save a few outlying exceptions. Police energy can be more usefully expended towards homicides and other serious crimes.

The US just isn't like that. And the issue of whether it would be without guns is a moot point because it's just not going to get that way. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the United States. Even if we shut down Colt, Winchester and all the others, gathered up all the guns we could find and melted them down, you'd probably still have a hundred million firearms that would essentially be on the black market. And there's nothing to stop them from coming across an enormous border with Mexico. A War on Firearms would have just about the same effect as the War on Drugs or the War on Terror, except in this case, only one side would be armed. And the FBI and ATF already have a pretty awful record just trying to enforce the firearms laws they've got.

As for the "culture of violence" bit, I still don't know how I feel about that. I tend to think that the high US crime rate is driven by things other than available weaponry. Especially since we've actually seen drops in the crime rates in places where carry and conceal laws are enacted. There's a lot of opinion and not a whole lot of proven theory on that particular bit, but it's hard to argue against it. I have my own personal theories, but nothing really substantiated. Which is pretty much the state of the field at the moment.

That doesn't make me sympathetic to the NRA loonies who have basically been arguing by making things up for the past thirty years, or the gun nuts whose entire identities are tied to the psychosexual daydreams that their firearms can inspire. No matter what the die hards will say, there already is a degree of gun control in this country, and the Second Amendment has not aged very well. It's already coming out that if the laws were enforced as they should have been that this guy should not have been able to obtain a firearm at all. But since the Second Amendment is now the only Ironclad Right in this country right now, we're letting everyone from sociopath to chimpanzee buy them without a second thought.

After reading more of this thread:

Jack's bonkers. Unless the crime rate in England has jumped something like 800% in the last decade, it's nowhere near the US rate in any category, save one, and that's assaults. That's because there really is a culture of violence in England, and that's a culture of bar fights. Same guys who do the soccer riot thing. The big difference here, is that assaults in England involve fists and the occasional knife. Assaults in the US involved gunshot victims who didn't die. Certain property crimes like burglary are a bit closer to ours, but the idea there seems to be that they value a low homicide rate over some stolen ****. Which is a very valid choice.

The Europeans don't get our side of things precisely because **** like this doesn't happen over there. To put it succinctly, we're the only ones living in glass houses.

[Stalking Shadow]

The Europeans don't get our side of things precisely because **** like this doesn't happen over there. To put it succinctly, we're the only ones living in glass houses.


People living in glass houses shouldn't own guns. ;)

[Vendel]

I own 3 guns. God Bless America.

Edit:Just saw this.
There goes the neighbourhood.

Since I've come to the conclusion that you, Jack, are completely incapable of having any kind of civil conversation on matters like this (similarly to Vendel, actually,) I'll back out of this one before he turns up as well and this thread blows into something I don't even want to read.

I’m glad you feel the need to involve me as much as possible you pompous ass.

[Solos]

"Nobody is going to kill someone by having an abortion* or being gay. Having easy access to guns makes killing someone a lot easier. If somebody could prove that banning Reservoir Dogs would notably lower the murder rate i would support it as well. "

That last sentence is scarier to me then the idea of the gun ban, and pretty much why the US has a 2nd amendment.

If hypothetically watching Reservoir Dogs triggered a reaction in a percentage of the population that made them kill people, why would you not want it banned? I'm not saying it should be banned because it's violent, just if it could be proved that it made people go out and kill others then why would you want people watching it?


NOTE: Not saying touching a gun makes people go out and kill people, just giving an example of when i would support banning a film if it contributed to people getting murdered.

[Dr Jack Wolfe]

You mean the 810 per 100k assaults commited in England and Wales in 2001 vs the 318 per 100k in the US? So only about 2.5 times as likely to get punched out in England? (per capita has to work both ways)

Its tough comparison because of how the catigories are defined. England/Wales has 2 catagories for assault, the US one. Same thing happens with thefts. Plus both coutries leave out years, and I"ll be damned if I can find the US stats on a UN site for 2004 or 2005. I can give you the FBI numbers. The latest Interpol numbers are locked.

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sc.pdf
UN report.

I'll give the you the guns stats. I"m for the enforcement of gun laws, just not the repeal of the 2nd. I'll also give you the rape stats (Bout 2 to 1 England's favor), those I blame on the puritans.


There are 250 million guns in this country, guns play a completely different role in the culture. They are not going away.

[Stalking Shadow]

There are 250 million guns in this country

I'd be curious to hear how many individual gun owners there are, given that most of the people I hear of that own guns, own multiple weapons.

[Dr Jack Wolfe]

If hypothetically watching Reservoir Dogs triggered a reaction in a percentage of the population that made them kill people, why would you not want it banned? I'm not saying it should be banned because it's violent, just if it could be proved that it made people go out and kill others then why would you want people watching it?


NOTE: Not saying touching a gun makes people go out and kill people, just giving an example of when i would support banning a film if it contributed to people getting murdered.


I think speech, including that of questionable taste all ways, has to allowed to happen. Dogs is an interesting example, but what if its Shakesphere? How do we make the distinction? Who makes it? Who confirms it? As long as we can be that sure lets take at look at 5, 6, and 7. A bit paranoid, maybe but I like most of my opinions and Rights.


If there was a DVD infected with a magic virus that made people 20% of the people kill (isn't the a CoH Mission?) Burn it. If 1 guy out of 300 million, who is clearly crazy anyway? Nope. That becomes a parents/school/local thing, this guy is sick.

Of course its the first 48hrs so I'm falling back on my comfort zone. I may change my mind.

[Dr Jack Wolfe]

I'd be curious to hear how many individual gun owners there are, given that most of the people I hear of that own guns, own multiple weapons.
I don't think anyone knows.


NRA site watch out

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126

"there were 60.4 million approved (new and used) NICS firearm transactions between 1994 2004.4 The number of NICS checks for firearm purchases or permits increased 3.2% between 2003-2004."

" Numerous surveys over the last 40+ years have found that almost half of all households have at least one gun owner"

***Edit***
2000 Census
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-8.pdf
Total households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105,480,101 100.0

+ 1 % a year since 2000

So 50 to 60 million?

[Stalking Shadow]

I dunno. If it's "almost half of all households", that puts the number at at least 50-60 million.

Part of me wants to reject any NRA studies out of hand, but I'd be committing a critical fallacy. So, let's assume for the sake of argument that there's more than 50-60 million households with guns (as a conservative estimate based on the census data) out of the greater population of 100 million households in the United States.

However, I want to examine the American "culture of the gun" a little bit. Just because its there, does it make it right? In Japan, for example, there are about as many suicides as there are traffic fatalities in the US, and that's not a per capita number, that's the raw statistic. (More than 30k per year).

This is something that an American, or, generally, any member of Western society would find abhorrent and taboo, but is a traditional, if not accepted Japanese way of dealing with failure. Does that make it right?

[Poison]

There are approximately 350,000 gun-related crimes a year in the US.
11,000 people die as a result thereof.
More than 200 million firearms are owned legaly by private owners (Jack says 250 mio, so I guess somewhat in between).
This number increases by 8 million a year.
Only 1.6% of all weapon bids were declined in 2005.

Some interesting facts at http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/
Only some of you will make the effort to check it, but it's worth your while.

[Dr Jack Wolfe]

My god the end is near.

From Gamepolitics.com this is Rush Limbaugh

" Not every video gamer goes out and murders 33 people on the college campus though. There’s more to this than that… it may desensitize people, but it doesn’t turn everybody into mass murderers…

People have a tough time accepting a relatively simple explanation for something of this scale. But how many people are playing video games out there? How many millions of people play video games, and how many millions of people have guns?

If you start blaming the video games, you may as well demand video game control because it’s the same thing when you start trying to blame guns for this. You have here a sick individual, an evil individual who committed a random act. But if you want to start blaming the video games, this guy was this or that, weeeeell, then you’ve gotta maybe talk about banning them because that’s the same tack that’s taken with guns. "

I know he's defending his 2nd amendment, but jeez.

Couple good articles there.

http://gamepolitics.com/

[MiMiC]

Welcome to the board MiMiC we are a contentious bunch but generally agreeable. And you picked a hell of a topic for a first post ;)

Thanks mate. Contentious - hehe, yes, I remember from my debates on the many LGBT topics back when it was Paragoncity.com - cool I just noticed my July 2005 join date is still in effect. RAWR!.....and such.:P


*insert witty, tres cool signature & graphics here*
(yeah yeah yeah I'm workin' on it....sheesh)

[MikeKAY]

Damn unimaginative copycat. One Canadian shoots up a school and this **** starts happening again and again. Just pray that one of these ****s doesn’t start taking inspiration from Israel and Iraq – You think guns are bad? Try to fathom what a homemade explosive would do in a crowded dorm, cafeteria, or classroom. Honestly, if a suicidal sociopath gets it in his head to wreak havoc on a college campus like this, no amount of legislation is going to keep it from happening. The police are only really useful after the fact and then they are usually late, and completely useless because of the suicidal nature of the crime.

The problem with gun control? Well, it really depends on where you are. You see, in England, the government has been whittling away at gun ownership for decades and they never even HAD a significant amount of guns or manufacturers to begin with. There isn’t a significant market for smuggled, black market guns either, so gun control wasn’t a problem. Australia is a similar case. The main market was sportsmen and there weren’t many importers or manufacturers to introduce a large number of guns in the first place. Again, getting rid of them wasn’t a huge problem. The fact that both countries are islands sort of makes smuggling a royal pain in the ass which only compounds with the small market, making illegal gun running an unprofitable endeavor. Also, neither England nor Australia has even close to the problem that America has with inner city racial, gang, and drug related violence. Sure it’s there, but not even close to as bad. Not only do the major cities account for the MOST gun violence, but it also drives up the demand for illegal weapons. If the demand is there, the supply will be as well regardless of what the law says.

In America, guns are part of this nation’s soul. The very first explorers and settlers came armed with guns, every able bodied man of age was practically required to be armed, and the Revolution solidified the firearm and armed citizen as part of our culture for centuries to come. There are literally hundreds of millions of accounted for guns in this country and countless more illicit ones. Not only is ATF pretty much completely incapable of enforcing any kind of real gun control, such an effort would likely amount to nothing more then another impotent joke like the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Terror.” If nothing else is accomplished, banning guns would only increase existing drug runner’s profits by giving them yet another mind-bogglingly lucrative product to sell. It would basically be like prohibition – A bull**** practically unenforceable law that won’t remove guns and actually create more crime in the process. American citizens wouldn’t support or even respect the law, and ultimately, the government is here to serve its citizens… Not protect them from themselves. No matter how much grieving mothers want us to believe otherwise.

The bottom line? This shooting was carried out by a sick man - A mentally deranged, unconscionable sociopath obsessed with violence. Even if he hadn’t shot up Virginia Tech, the fact that he would become a murder was practically inevitable. He was a wolf among sheep, driven by his temperament and nature to kill as effortlessly as any other predator would. Teachers saw what kind of person he was, students saw it… They should have done something to remove him from the student body and place him in a mental institution where he belonged. Mark my words; it was apathy for the human element that allowed this crime to occur. NOT inadequate gun control.

So, unless you can offer some kind of brilliant solution that will completely rid us of those inclined to harm their fellow man, I suggest you stop making excuses and diverting responsibility from the cause to the means.

I own several guns; none of them have ever killed anyone.

I can manufacture explosives powerful enough to level a college; I haven’t.

I can bludgeon people, stab them, poison them, burn down buildings, and orchestrate a siege; I never will.

Every single day of our life, through shear faith in humanity, we take for granted that this won’t happen to us. For the people at Virginia Tech, that faith was enough 364 days of the year. All it takes is one day, one man, to erase that faith. The vast majority of the human race is NOT inclined to physically harm others… All it takes, all it will EVER take, is one. Never lose sight of that.

[razoras]

Now numbers are all well and good, let's put these numbers into perspective. When you have a massive country like ours (our States and their populations are the sizes of entire nations in other parts of the world) you can't just spit out big numbers and have them mean anything. By themselves they sound troublesome, yes.

There are approximately 350,000 gun-related crimes a year in the US.
We can assume safely that most of these gun crimes are one-time offenses. Let's be what I feel is conservative and say 75% of these are one-time offenses, as I'd estimate most people don't get to commit more than one gun crime before ending up in jail. Which amounts to 262,500 people. That's 0.00875% of the US population (rounded down to an even 300 million (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/us.html).)
11,000 people die as a result thereof.
Heart disease kills over 1,000,000 Americans each year. (http://www.healingwithnutrition.com/cdisease/cardiovascular/cardiovascular.html)
160,000 will die from ONLY lung cancer (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5128204/). I can only imagine how huge the numbers get if you consider ALL cancer deaths in America.
11,000 people in a population of 300,000,00 is: A tiny number my windows calculator can't even represent.

Do we have more gun crime? I'd say we do. In the UK (specifically England and Wales), according to the most recent statistical data released they've had only 27,000 or so firearm related crimes in the 2004/5 year bracket. In a country of 60,000,000 that's pretty statistically insignificant as well. Enough that it breaks the Windows calculator.

I'm definitely going to look very closely at the Brady Campaign. It's been a while, but I seem to recall looking closely at the studies they linked to made it pretty clear that the conclusions reached were dubious. Maybe they've found something more legitimate lately.

[Vendel]

Thank God the campus was a gun free zone. That really Saved a lot of lives.


Oh wait....

[Solario]

Thank God the campus was a gun free zone. That really Saved a lot of lives.


Oh wait....

Except of course if everyone had gone around Guns' A 'Blazin', it'd be hard to differentiate from the ACTUAL shooter and everyone else. He could conceivably never have been found out and a lot of additional people could have died because of mistaken identity and friendly fire. So, no.

Now if their gun control had been a little more through, that might have helped. Or the police had been even the slightest bit effective.

[Vendel]

Except of course if everyone had gone around Guns' A 'Blazin', it'd be hard to differentiate from the ACTUAL shooter and everyone else. He could conceivably never have been found out and a lot of additional people could have died because of mistaken identity and friendly fire. So, no.

Now if their gun control had been a little more through, that might have helped. Or the police had been even the slightest bit effective.

Yea...that is what would have happened...dozens of people shooting in random directions and at each other. Give me a break. Gun-Free zones are the breeding grounds for mass murder. If 1 person, just 1 with a gun and the know how to use it had been there. Many, many lives could have been saved.

Instead 1 man with 2 handguns....yea just a couple of handguns killed that many people.

[Graphite]

Ok, so I only had to read three pages into this thread to see I 100% agree with Charon....

My dad has argued for years that the 2nd Amendment has been misinterperted for centuries. It does not give every individual the right to a gun or even so people in the country can hunt for food. It gives states the power to create and enforce state militias. This way Virginia could not invade New York or rebels cause anarchy. The 2nd Amendment EXISTS because of fears like the Whiskey Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion)of 1791. Basically no other state gave a crap about the well being of the other such as Indian Problems, so they wanted the right to protect themselves. In the Articles of Confederation there wasn't even a central army and the delagets wanted protection. Yes they were that parranoid of each other.

My two cents:
You do not have the right to own a weapon. Guns are weapon. They are not a tool, they have only one perpose: to kill sh1t. If your duties require the use of a weapon, then you must be properly checked and screened. Just imagine if you had to have a Top Secret clearance to have access control to guns how much safer our society could be.

However, our upbring as Americans especially where it comes to guns is far different from Europe. We have more of em, and a lot of people feel it is their most prized pocession. Many people hand them to 12 years olds as a right of passage into manhood. However, you do not see those 12 year olds going around killing people. They have an instilled respect from birth as to what a gun is and how it should be properly handled. And that is the difference between Country and City upbringing.

Yes there are nut jobs. There will always be nut jobs. However the purpose of our enforcement should not be the guns themselves but keeps those guns out of nut jobs hands. The average American is not insane, regardless of what we might think. They just don' care so much. I forget who said it, but education is the solution to all of life's problems. People die on the streets every day. Its gotten to the point where citizens just gloss over it. We however do live in a very very safe and secure society, especially considering what else exists. Frankly I find this massacure to be the results of our free society.

And I would like to finish by saying, the man who killed Kennedy was a trained infantry Marine.

[Bitter Babe]

Well if the magistrate would have informed the officials about this person being a threat to himself he would have never been able to get the guns in the first place but for some reason that wasn't done.

I have my doubts about Kennedy's killer but that is for another thread lol

[Graphite]

The bottom line? This shooting was carried out by a sick man - A mentally deranged, unconscionable sociopath obsessed with violence. Even if he hadn’t shot up Virginia Tech, the fact that he would become a murder was practically inevitable. He was a wolf among sheep, driven by his temperament and nature to kill as effortlessly as any other predator would. Teachers saw what kind of person he was, students saw it… They should have done something to remove him from the student body and place him in a mental institution where he belonged. Mark my words; it was apathy for the human element that allowed this crime to occur. NOT inadequate gun control.


Well said. I would only add while I was in Atlanta, two people were shot only blocks away from the convension center. Many teams feel that area is so unsafe that there is an underground petition, NOT to go back. If we are going to call this guy an insane nut job, that same standard has to be applied to the "ganster on da street." Imo you have to be insane or raised horrible to even consider killing someone, let alone going through it.

I had no problem with armed platoons marching with M16s down my front street. Why? Because I trusted them and trusted the fact they were well trained of a deadly weapon. They understood the power and concequences held in their hands. I wouldn't say that of my apartment neighbors. I wouldn't neccicarly trust them with a Cleaver. Is that just becuase we don't know each other? (That whole lack of education and sense of community found in America) Meh, maybe.

[Stalking Shadow]

I wouldn't say that of my apartment neighbors. I wouldn't neccicarly trust them with a Cleaver. Is that just becuase we don't know each other? (That whole lack of education and sense of community found in America) Meh, maybe.


This I think might be the key issue here. Can we live in a society with guns if we don't have the open lines of communication in our communities? Sure, get a gun for that one hypothetical rainy day with the axe-murderer in town, but simply having the gun in your house does not bode well for conflict-resolution with your neighbors. Especially if you don't already have a level of communication with them already.

[coldcut]

Yea...that is what would have happened...dozens of people shooting in random directions and at each other. Give me a break. Gun-Free zones are the breeding grounds for mass murder. If 1 person, just 1 with a gun and the know how to use it had been there. Many, many lives could have been saved.

Instead 1 man with 2 handguns....yea just a couple of handguns killed that many people.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the argument, but I think you would have had at the very least, 2-3 "friendly fire" shootings based on misidentification.

You're assuming that everyone that would carry a pistol would be a responsible, careful, well-trained individual. More likely it would be more akin to how people drive.

I feel like maybe teachers or professors who want to participate in a firearms training program should be allowed to carry weapons, but I'm not all that enthusiastic about your average 19 year old's ability to properly evaluate these kinds of situations, and I'm even less optimistic about the average 19 year old who's carrying a concealed weapon all the time.

[Stalking Shadow]

Given that I just totaled my car this morning, and I'm 19, your point is proven.

[WingedAvenger]

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the argument, but I think you would have had at the very least, 2-3 "friendly fire" shootings based on misidentification.

You're assuming that everyone that would carry a pistol would be a responsible, careful, well-trained individual. More likely it would be more akin to how people drive.

I feel like maybe teachers or professors who want to participate in a firearms training program should be allowed to carry weapons, but I'm not all that enthusiastic about your average 19 year old's ability to properly evaluate these kinds of situations, and I'm even less optimistic about the average 19 year old who's carrying a concealed weapon all the time.

QFMFT.

[Vendel]

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the argument, but I think you would have had at the very least, 2-3 "friendly fire" shootings based on misidentification.

Yea but the facts just don't pan out here.The media seriously under reports things like this or another Columbine being stopped by people with guns.

Trust me. If a bunch of people get shot in "friendly fire" shootings people wold take notice. It just doesn't happen. "Several wrong people were shot and the bad guy got away"

You're assuming that everyone that would carry a pistol would be a responsible, careful, well-trained individual. More likely it would be more akin to how people drive.

Well despite what some people think not just anyone can get a gun. Now if you wanna say that only people with a concelaed carry lisence can bring in guns thats a reasonable arguement thing....a lot of states require you jump through hoops to get one (well Missouri does anyways)

I feel like maybe teachers or professors who want to participate in a firearms training program should be allowed to carry weapons, but I'm not all that enthusiastic about your average 19 year old's ability to properly evaluate these kinds of situations, and I'm even less optimistic about the average 19 year old who's carrying a concealed weapon all the time.

Im fine with teachers and profesors owning guns....as for all the 19 year old talk.

I have been around guns my whole life. Hell my family loves guns. My dad was a Federally lisenced gun dealer. (which was sweet for getting things like AK's and he could carry a gun anywhere) I own 3 guns. I have never, nor has anyoen in my family...or anyone I know ever been hurt by a gun or ever misfired ect ect.

Look i'm not saying "give everyone a gun...or two" all I am saying is Gun Free zones are a farce that are ripe for mass murder. And if you can carry a gun you should be able to anywhere.

[WingedAvenger]

Trust me. If a bunch of people get shot in "friendly fire" shootings people wold take notice. It just doesn't happen.

Yeah, you wanna know why it doesn't happen? Because they don't allow guns on school campuses!

Holy moly. Next thing you know, 2 + 2 really will start to equal 4.

Im fine with teachers and profesors owning guns....as for all the 19 year old talk.

I have been around guns my whole life. Hell my family loves guns. My dad was a Federally lisenced gun dealer. (which was sweet for getting things like AK's and he could carry a gun anywhere) I own 3 guns. I have never, nor has anyoen in my family...or anyone I know ever been hurt by a gun or ever misfired ect ect.

Look i'm not saying "give everyone a gun...or two" all I am saying is Gun Free zones are a farce that are ripe for mass murder. And if you can carry a gun you should be able to anywhere.

Maybe we should declare all the high schools in Compton to no longer be gun free zones? They can remove the metal detectors and just let everyone carry around a gun there whenever they choose. That would be safe, right?

[Vendel]

Yeah, you wanna know why it doesn't happen? Because they don't allow guns on school campuses!

Holy moly. Next thing you know, 2 + 2 really will start to equal 4.



Maybe we should declare all the high schools in Compton to no longer be gun free zones? They can remove the metal detectors and just let everyone carry around a gun there whenever they choose. That would be safe, right?




Yea if you don't want to read what i'm typing and just wanna pick out whatever fits your views thats fine. Just try not to be a racist jackass about it K.

But hey I can play to.
If you believe "Gun-Free zones" are a good idea then you are a moron.

Just yesterday I saw a sign on a firehouse proclaiming that no guns were to be brought inside. Well wow F**king weee. If I was gonna go in there to shoot someone I would see that sign and you had better damn well believe I would turn right around and leave. I mean hey....can't take a gun in there. So no one gets shot today.

[MikeKAY]

Well despite what some people think not just anyone can get a gun. Now if you wanna say that only people with a concelaed carry lisence can bring in guns thats a reasonable arguement thing....a lot of states require you jump through hoops to get one (well Missouri does anyways)


Both the shooters guns were legally acquired. AFTER he had been been sent to a mental institution (where he had been deemed not to be a danger to himself or others, and released... Way to go.).

Strike one psychiatrists. Strike two permit to carry background check. Strike three school officials.

It's horrifying how many people dropped the ball on this piece of ****.

Maybe we should declare all the high schools in Compton to no longer be gun free zones? They can remove the metal detectors and just let everyone carry around a gun there whenever they choose. That would be safe, right?

Incidentally, school shootings have occurred. The fact that they have speaks volumes for the effectiveness of gun free zones, metal detectors, and rent-a-cops. They have not prevented, deterred, or stopped any of these tragedies. I suggest a better policy.

We train flight attendants to defend themselves and we place armed Air Marshals on all plain flights, all because of ONE tragedy. How many schools need to get shot up before we follow suit? Hide, cower, and wait to get shot isn't a policy, it's a death sentence for innocent kids.

Someone needs to physically intervene to stop these events as they happen. I prefer trained professionals over amateur vigilantes and the police are ****ing useless.

[RedSwitchblade]

You know, I have the reputation on teamspeak for being coarse, crude, and sometimes horrifying in my content.

And yet I've barely weighed in here.

Your discussions are valid, but in my opinion all you've done is accentuate your differences in the pursuit of a fleeting realization that in the end, this thread will disappear and you'll either have proven to yourself that you made a minor point, or greatly disliked someone for that same reason.

Even I, in my infinite immaturity and bad humor, choose to avoid these stressful arguments entirely.

And yes I know I play right into the debate mindset by saying that.

[MikeKAY]

Beg pardon, but, uhh, who are you addressing? :eyebrow:

[RedSwitchblade]

*looks in* Pretty much everyone. I'm a nihilist when it comes to internet debates. *backs out*

[WingedAvenger]

Wow. I just discovered that if you can back Vendel into a corner with logic and reason, all he has left is childish insults. Good to know. Can you go now and let the grownups finish the discussion?

Incidentally, school shootings have occurred. The fact that they have speaks volumes for the effectiveness of gun free zones, metal detectors, and rent-a-cops. They have not prevented, deterred, or stopped any of these tragedies. I suggest a better policy.

We train flight attendants to defend themselves and we place armed Air Marshals on all plain flights, all because of ONE tragedy. How many schools need to get shot up before we follow suit? Hide, cower, and wait to get shot isn't a policy, it's a death sentence for innocent kids.

Someone needs to physically intervene to stop these events as they happen. I prefer trained professionals over amateur vigilantes and the police are ****ing useless.

I mostly agree. School shootings can and will happen, despite best efforts to prevent them. But you can't deny that having SOME preventative measures in place is better then NOT having them. If you took out the metal detectors in the bad neighborhood schools (I'll duck naming specific ones to avoid any more of Vendel's misguided and laughable attempts to call me a racist), you know things would really be worse. I'm all for beefing up campus security, whether that be improving the effectiveness of the police, or bringing in private security. Putting guns into the hands of the students themselves isn't the answer though.

[WingedAvenger]

*looks in* Pretty much everyone. I'm a nihilist when it comes to internet debates. *backs out*

I disagree. A true Internet debate nihilist doesn't have to point it out to everyone, they'd simply not say anything at all. ;)

[Stalking Shadow]

I disagree. A true Internet debate nihilist doesn't have to point it out to everyone, they'd simply not say anything at all. ;)

Rather, they'd say whatever they want, to whomever, but know that in the long run, it doesn't matter.

[Vendel]

Wow. I just discovered that if you can back Vendel into a corner with logic and reason, all he has left is childish insults. Good to know. Can you go now and let the grownups finish the discussion?


Logic and reason? All I saw was your opinion. The facts just do not back it up.

But hey. Two times now you have shown you cannot debate without pulling a Charon. So good for you. You are officially a pompous ass.

Have fun patting yourself on the back, hope you don't pull a muscle.
The big kids will be over here.

[Kinetix]

Well despite what some people think not just anyone can get a gun.

Yes, pretty much anyone can. Maybe not legally, but they can. I'm 18 and have someone who would probably sell me about 5 handguns if I wanted (illegal until I'm 21).

[Vendel]

Yes, pretty much anyone can. Maybe not legally, but they can. I'm 18 and have someone who would probably sell me about 5 handguns if I wanted (illegal until I'm 21).


I meant Legally. Sorry. Yea anyone can get a gun through "other" means.

[WingedAvenger]

Logic and reason? All I saw was your opinion. The facts just do not back it up.

But hey. Two times now you have shown you cannot debate without pulling a Charon. So good for you. You are officially a pompous ass.

Have fun patting yourself on the back, hope you don't pull a muscle.
The big kids will be over here.

As opposed to all the "facts" you've been tossing out? Where are those again? Oh that's right, they're not. All you did was state that you've never been shot by a gun, and then assume all those who carry guns would be diligent, responsible people. These are your facts? Do you even know what that word means? :rolleyes:

If you read the thread a little more closely, you'll see that MikeKay was able to respond to my point with a reasoned counterpoint. All you did was throw up the racism card and started the name calling. Big kids, hah. I guess we just shouldn't expect better from you, eh?

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to show me, with facts, that allowing guns at innercity schools would make them safer. Go ahead. (I know you can't, I just want to see what creative new names you'll come up with to call me since that's apparently all you're capable of.)

[Kinetix]

I meant Legally. Sorry. Yea anyone can get a gun through "other" means.

Not that I have a firm stance on the gun matter, but you saying that makes your point meaningless. It doesn't matter if guns are illegal, those who want them will get them.

[ThunderMace]

Here is a Blog post that covers some interesting points, I thought I'd post it here. I agree with a lot of it, but of course not all of it.


Virginia Tech Shootings, my first, last, and only post on the subject
There has been a lot of electrons expended on the subject of the shootings at Virginia Tech on the 16th. I’ve got a few things to point out. Hopefully I’ll avoid a little of the hysteria.

First, let me up front say that the shootings were clearly the act of a highly disturbed mind. There were a plethora of warning signals, to be sure. The individual was a creepy, strange loner whose writings were so disturbing to his creative writing professor (who probably has read some really freaky stuff in her time) that he was recommended to the school shrink. Lots of text has been written on this kid´s alleged warning signs.

There have been some who have said that the school officials should have seen this coming and done something about our shooter before he became a shooter. That’s stupid and a typical trick of attempting to fix blame on the closest Deep Pocket (as a public school, that’s the Virginia Taxpayer who will pay the costs). Professors are paid to teach classes, not act as shrinks, substitute parents, cops, or anything else. Face it, there are a lot of disturbed kids at any given college campus, and an almost non-existent fraction kill anyone (other than themselves) much less 30+ classmates.

Where the school did screw up is in the area of the gap between the discovery of two corpses with gunshot wounds in a co-ed dorm and the 50+ shootings in the classroom building. In defense of the school, it was apparently a domestic disturbance (based on the information available at 0730) and those don’t typically turn into mass, indiscriminate shootings. Thousands of people get killed in domestic disturbances each year, and a negligible percentage of those killers go on to kill anyone else, much less lots of others.

There is, to be fair, no method of reliably alerting the entire campus to the existence of a shooter on campus. This isn’t an elementary school where the principal can get on the Public Address system and talk to everyone in the building. The only method I can think of would be to have announced it on all local radio and TV stations (on no notice, that’s a lot easier said than done) as well as having a campus-wide loudspeaker system. Second, precisely what would they have said? Remember, there were two dead and no one really knew WHY. All they knew was that the two were killed in a dorm. Some have said the administration should have canceled classes—which would have guaranteed that if the killer was after a list of folks, he would have known to look for them in their dorm rooms. It’s easy to say that since we know NOW that the shooter decided to go into a classroom building and shoot everyone he came across, that would have been his plan from the beginning. Without more information, the administration had no good plan that couldn’t have been defeated by a smart, capable shooter. And if the shooter is a student at a first-rate institution like VPI, he’s probably not an idiot.

There is a lot of talk from foreigners and home-grown hoplophobic fools trying to pin this crime on America’s “gun culture” and the relative ease of acquiring firearms in this country.
First, the guy was South Korean. Granted that he was a resident of the US and had been for years. I’m unclear on how long ago it was that he moved to the US. But if we are going to blame “gun culture” then we have to admit that this fellow wasn’t fully integrated into American culture to begin with. Second, I have to question whether or not the United States has a “gun culture” at all. As near as I can tell, we have several variations thereof, running the gamut from ethnic urban criminal gun culture to Texan. Emphasis varies in each category—and it is undemonstrated that this individual was raised in any of them. Mass media-wise, there is a demonstrable hostility to firearm ownership shown by media and governmental elites—to include many “police chiefs” (read: politicians who supervise police departments).

Second, if the United State’s gun culture is to blame, how do we explain this sort of event in Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, or Germany? In Japan there was a mass school stabbing with 8 deaths perpetrated with a kitchen knife because it is that difficult to get a gun in Japan.

Further, how do we explain school killings like the massacre perpetrated in 1927 with bombs?

Third, the issue is not the weapon. The issue is a personality so damaged that he could kill two people—apparently on impulse. Then he spent two hours working the details of how to execute a plan to murder more--something he had been planning for a long time based on the information sent to the media, and secured the chains and ammunition necessary to execute it. Then, over the next thirty minutes he slaughtered 30 people, shot 20 more he likely expected to die. I suggest that the issue is the person. You can use what ever word your theology permits. I point to sin—or evil, to use another Politically Incorrect term. This man was so badly disconnected from his fellow human beings that he was mentally capable of going through this sequence. The focus on the weapon he used is a red herring. Had he not had a gun, he would have run amok with a baseball bat, or a knife, or a pitchfork, or a fire ax, etc, etc, etc. People who are incapable of seeing sin (because their epistemological views do not include that term) MUST focus on the weapon. Without seeing the sin, there is nothing to make this comprehensible.

Blaming the pistol is a bit of superstitious animism. It’s pre-scientific, pre-logical, and pre-Christian. There are no motivating spirits inhabiting weapons by their very nature. While any person is free by both Natural Law and the Constitution to hold what ever pagan beliefs they choose and hold them as they please, I am not interested in their hypocritical sermonizing nor do I believe that their theology should have anything to do with what I do with my body. And believe me; my self-defense is all about what I do with my body.

The animism shows up in the stupidity of the arguments of this crowd and their opposites on the pro-gun side. I’m even-handed here. Animism is not restricted to the gun controllers. The pro-gunners tend to frame their arguments fairly similarly. “If only someone in that building had a handgun.” The counter to that is “giving guns to everyone will lead to disaster.” The former is imprecisely phrased, the latter is a strawman. Let us examine them in detail.

The majority of the killings appear to have been (based on media reports) committed with a 9mm pistol. Most of these weapons have a 15 round magazine, plus or minus a few. That means he ran through at least four magazines of ammunition to generate 50+ casualties. Given the high number of fatalities and the generally pathetic quality of the 9mm round, it is highly likely (in my mind) that he hit with at least twice that many rounds. Let’s suggest that he hit with 50% of his shots, which is generous. That’s 200 rounds, fired over the space of something like a half an hour. That is 14 magazines. 13 times, he dropped a magazine and inserted a new one. There is no evidence to suggest that he was an experienced shooter, so I doubt he practiced quick-changing magazines. There were 13 times an aggressive person with nothing but his bare hands could have taken away that pistol and fed it to the little freak muzzle-first.

In the course of a half an hour, there were, logically speaking, numerous opportunities for a person to blindside the shooter, attack him with a knife or blunt object, and take the weapon away from him. An untrained person moving through a building alone with a single semi-automatic handgun of dubious stopping power is not God Almighty. Yet he seems to have had things pretty much to himself. Some students apparently complied with his demands to kneel on the floor so he could shoot them in a methodical fashion. The only known examples of heroism consisted in bracing doors so others could escape. While I understand that a gentleman of advanced years isn’t going to leap into hand to hand with a student, there were plenty of physically fit young males in the building capable of fighting back. No one did. A handgun would NOT have helped the situation because it would not provide what was most necessary, which was a mind capable of grasping the situation and acting with decisive violence.

A handgun is a tool. As such, it is only as good as the user. A stapler does not staple paper together. A hammer does not drive nails. And a chainsaw neither cuts down trees nor dismembers stunt doubles. These things are tools, and allow a human being to do these things. A handgun without a mind being it is a paperweight.

I submit that there were, statistically speaking, almost certainly Conceal Carry holders in the building who, in deference to a stupid policy, left their firearms at home. What they also left at home was their testicular fortitude, and ability to assess the situation from a tactical situation and act based on what they had rather than what they wish they had. They became slaves of the gun-fetishist mindset and turned their backs on the thousands of years our ancestors have been killing both food and threats without firearms.

The pro-gun lobby often forgets, when arguing for greater gun ownership and firearm education and so forth that having a gun is tertiary. Knowing how to use a gun is secondary. Having a (forgive my Army-ism here) a warrior ethos is primary. If you aren’t willing and psychologically able to use that handgun in defense of your life or another’s life, don’t spend the money on it. And a warrior will use whatever comes to his hands. We are not our tools. Our tools are not us.

You are not your ****ing khakis, as they say in Fight Club.

What the pro-gun lobby means to say (but forgets to explicate when arguing at the bumper-sticker level) is that handgun ownership, combined with training, allows those psychologically capable of doing so to protect the rest of you. Not all folks with the right mindset are professional Soldiers or Law Enforcement Officers, and no Soldier or LEO is on-duty 24/7. Concealed carry allows the easiest method of controlled violence to be deployed immediately when a situation calls for it. That may be simply to show the weapon to the aggressor and let him know that he needs to find somewhere else to be. It all depends on the situation.

As for the argument that giving handguns to everyone will lead to disaster, the argument is simply fallacious because it assumes that anyone (excepting loons, and the pro-gun crowd has them) is arguing that everyone should have guns. Most people should not carry guns. See above argument—if you are not willing or able to use a gun to kill without hesitation should the situation call for it, you should not carry a gun. All that will accomplish is to get the gun taken away and used on you. However, those with a CHL are a self-selected bunch on a couple levels. They decided to go through the hassle of the paperwork and classes to get a CHL. They presumably care enough about it to learn at least the basics. They may not have the ability to use a weapon. But you never know until you’ve been in a situation where killing a fellow human being was the legal and moral thing to do.

Granted, I have argued in the past that anyone who can’t commit violence in the first person should not have the right to use their franchise to send me to commit violence at a great remove, and hence should not be permitted to vote. But that’s an argument for another day, and I don’t really believe that intellectually. It’s just a gut feeling.

The issue I have with the formula (no weapons, period) adopted by the school is not that it makes it "impossible" to defend yourself against an attacker. The issue is that a firearm is a magnificent tool, supremely suited to allowing those who are small, weak, or otherwise less physically capable to defend themselves from larger or stronger persons. It is a huge advantage, and handing that advantage to the attacker while withholding it from the defender is immoral.

But this was not the single point of failure. There were failures aplenty in that building. No good, objective analysis of the situation will ever be carried out. First, there were no good objective observers, second all analysis will be slanted for political purposes. Finally, it would be considered speaking poorly of the dead, who will acquire the roseate "hero" glow after a week or three. There were a few genuine heroes, but most were not. They were victims, sheep slaughtered by a wolf. But that´s one of the diseases of American society, the inability to differentiate between heroes and victims. No wonder we have too many of the latter and not enough of the former.

[Vendel]

As opposed to all the "facts" you've been tossing out? Where are those again? Oh that's right, they're not. All you did was state that you've never been shot by a gun, and then assume all those who carry guns would be diligent, responsible people. These are your facts? Do you even know what that word means? :rolleyes:

If you read the thread a little more closely, you'll see that MikeKay was able to respond to my point with a reasoned counterpoint. All you did was throw up the racism card and started the name calling. Big kids, hah. I guess we just shouldn't expect better from you, eh?

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to show me, with facts, that allowing guns at innercity schools would make them safer. Go ahead. (I know you can't, I just want to see what creative new names you'll come up with to call me since that's apparently all you're capable of.)

I love how you accuse me of name calling, and you are some how better than that. While at the same time you are basically calling me a moron and/or a liar. The irony of that is not lost on me.

Oh well. Besides the fact that you keep bringing up inner city schools. Do you mean high schools? If that is the case where did I ever say we should arm everyone in a high school or lower?

As for collage, I do believe that if you can own a gun legeally, or are allowed to conceal-carry, you should be able to carry it onto a campus. I'm all open for a debate on the parameters.

You somehow seem to believe that gun free zones are some sort of safe havens where everyone is protected by that fact. When it is compleate bull****. A gun free zone is the biggest joke ever in the gun debate.

[WingedAvenger]

I love how you accuse me of name calling, and you are some how better than that. While at the same time you are basically calling me a moron and/or a liar. The irony of that is not lost on me.

The only thing I inferred was that you are being childish. But I suppose you will just read whatever you want to read.


Oh well. Besides the fact that you keep bringing up inner city schools. Do you mean high schools? If that is the case where did I ever say we should arm everyone in a high school or lower?

You said we should be able to carry a gun anywhere we want. The point of me bringing that up was to show that there are some places where this would be a very bad idea.


As for collage, I do believe that if you can own a gun legeally, or are allowed to conceal-carry, you should be able to carry it onto a campus. I'm all open for a debate on the parameters.

Campus security should be the best it can be. But if those that run a particular college feel it's okay to allow armed students into classrooms, then the next VT-style shooting will only come sooner rather then later.


You somehow seem to believe that gun free zones are some sort of safe havens where everyone is protected by that fact. When it is compleate bull****. A gun free zone is the biggest joke ever in the gun debate.

Still not seeing the facts you keep purporting to be using. So far, you're all opinion.

[razoras]

Campus security should be the best it can be. But if those that run a particular college feel it's okay to allow armed students into classrooms, then the next VT-style shooting will only come sooner rather then later.

That's nonsense. The VT-style shooting occured, again, not because of guns. or video games.

It happened because the guy was bat**** insane. Guns don't make people insane.

[coldcut]

It's a good article Mace. There's a certain amount of utopianism that's pretty endemic to both sides of the gun debate, and which you see even in that explanation.

I happen to be very bad at dispelling it because I tend to get pissed off about bad facts and fantastic scenarios.

[Vendel]

Still not seeing the facts you keep purporting to be using. So far, you're all opinion.


You seriously believe a gun free zone is a good idea? Do you not want the ability to protect yourself?

911 isn't going to save you. The cops will arrive just in time to scrap you and 30 other people off the floor.

[WingedAvenger]

That's nonsense. The VT-style shooting occured, again, not because of guns. or video games.

It happened because the guy was bat**** insane. Guns don't make people insane.

Guns don't make people insane, but the insane can get guns. Apparently in Virginia, it's incredibly easy to legally buy a gun, no matter what your state of mental health. Glad I don't live there.


You seriously believe a gun free zone is a good idea? Do you not want the ability to protect yourself?

911 isn't going to save you. The cops will arrive just in time to scrap you and 30 other people off the floor.

Still no facts? Okay.

Granted, this is situational and largely hypothetical, but there's more then one way to protect yourself. Many of the students at VT protected themselves by jumping out windows and barricading doors. You can't say that putting a gun in the hands of those students would have done them any good anyway. Like the article that Mace posted: It's not enough to simply have a gun. You have to have the warrior ethos to use it. I suppose we'll never know for sure, but I'd be interested in finding out just how many of the people who were in the vicinity of the killings had A) a gun permit, and B) a gun at home that they would have been carrying had they been allowed. Now that would be a fact.

[Vendel]

Guns don't make people insane, but the insane can get guns. Apparently in Virginia, it's incredibly easy to legally buy a gun, no matter what your state of mental health. Glad I don't live there.




Still no facts? Okay.



Ok. Fine. Which facts do you want? The ones that show people stopping a potential VT or Colombine(sp?) with a gun. Or the facts that show that a gun free zone is a deathtrap?

I can pull both out off my ass if I really need to. I just assumed the logic of it all would come crashing down on you at some point.

I guess I was wrong.

[Jade]

Personally, i think that before we go blaming inanimate objects, that perhaps we should take a look at the health care system in the U.S.

Now for my stance on gun control. Personally, i think it's a load of crap. I even think having a registration list is dangerous. What if a country like Russia (Just an example.. nothing personal against russia) descides they want to invade the U.S. They now have a list of every armed person in the United States.

As for the constitution. It can and is interpreted so many different ways. I've heard the argument before that it's only organized militia's, and all that jazz, but it can also be read as every citizen of the US is a member of the militia, and we all have rights to bear arms in that case.

Personally, i have a permit to carry concealed. I dont anymore, but I used to. And the only reason I dont have a gun now a days is because I am poor. I think if we edjucated our youth on things like guns, that it wouldn't have the stigma that it has now.

-Jade

[Kinetix]

Ok. Fine. Which facts do you want? The ones that show people stopping a potential VT or Colombine(sp?) with a gun. Or the facts that show that a gun free zone is a deathtrap?

I can pull both out off my ass if I really need to. I just assumed the logic of it all would come crashing down on you at some point.

I guess I was wrong.

If someone can help me find it, there was an incident where 2 armed students (college I believe) heard a shooting going on, calmly took control of the situation and shot the killer.

I forget where I saw it, been looking on google for a few minuts to no avail.

[Yin]

There needs to be something.

I know up here at Edinboro there is no way for authority to check and see if people have concealed weapons in their dorms. Nothing at all. So what's preventing someone from going, "I feel like shooting a couple people today," and walking outside of their room and start goin' ballistic? This is what has everyone on edge here. That and there is no real official way to lock the school down. There are no alarms or emergency calls to notify the entire campus that a shooting is occuring, and not everyone has access to their computer to check their email. And even that is a lame way of notifying the ENTIRE campus that something is going on. There are some days I don't check my email for days. Only real way to protect ourselves is to lock ourselves inside of our rooms.

So something needs to be done. I'm pretty sure its like that for a lot of other campuses too. No metal detectors in sight. Someone could have an entire arsenal in their room and no one would ever know it.

[WingedAvenger]

Ok. Fine. Which facts do you want? The ones that show people stopping a potential VT or Colombine(sp?) with a gun. Or the facts that show that a gun free zone is a deathtrap?

I can pull both out off my ass if I really need to. I just assumed the logic of it all would come crashing down on you at some point.

I guess I was wrong.

/shrug Every time I post, you keep trying to debase me by clinging to your precious "facts", yet you present none in return. I would have assumed the logic of not being a hypocrite would have come crashing down on you as well, but apparently not.

Edit: Oh, here's a good fact for you. Some cursory checking on the Internet brought me this tidbit:

The "gun free zones" law exempts CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) holders who live in a state that requires a background check before the issuing of a permit.

So apparently, if you submitted to a background check to get a CCW permit, you can still bring guns into a gun free zone. This means that you are basically arguing for people who want to avoid background checks to bring a gun into a school.

I've also been checking for instances where an armed civilian has stopped a potential mass killing, but I've not uncovered one yet. Is there any evidence that this would even work?

[MikeKAY]

I've also been checking for instances where an armed civilian has stopped a potential mass killing, but I've not uncovered one yet. Is there any evidence that this would even work?


Appalachian School of Law, Virginia, January 16 2002.

The shooter surrendered when two students retrieved their guns independently of each other and converged on him. Reports of the event are conflicting, but it definitely happened.

A story about it. (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200209%5 CNAT20020917a.html)

[razoras]

Guns don't make people insane, but the insane can get guns. Apparently in Virginia, it's incredibly easy to legally buy a gun, no matter what your state of mental health. Glad I don't live there.


According to the Governor he's trying to find a fix to that, since the law explicitly states that you have to be institutionalized to lose your gun rights. This guy SHOULD have been institutionalized, but I don't think that happens much unless it's voluntary these days.