TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Gun Control in America
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r If anything should be changed, it's the penalties for using guns in violence crimes to start with. Responsible people and their guns should not be put in the same catagories as the criminals; they're innocent.

Why are criminals constantly being brought into debate? It's the supposidly responsible people who flip out and go on the rampage.

quote:

I once thought that too, circumstances are funny things. Admittedly it was a different environment at the time and a very different country, but people are people regardless of where you go. Same said country went from being very prosperous, mostly democratic and with a high standard of living to 8 years later, an utter wreck of a country.

Thats down to your experience in Africa, in a country which was having some serious problems even though I cannot fathom what it must be like losing your possesions and having to fight for them etc.

Still I don't agree in Joe Average having a gun.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Take Canada as an example people. With our Billion dollar gun registry program it did absolutely NOTHING. In fact, gun violence (at least here in Toronto) went UP. The more something is retricted, the more 'in vogue' it's going to be with those that want them and it certainly didn't curtail the flow coming across the border. If anything should be changed, it's the penalties for using guns in violence crimes to start with. Responsible people and their guns should not be put in the same catagories as the criminals; they're innocent.

With regard to the long gun registry... yes it was a failure and waste of money. That said the registry itself is/was only one small portion of Canada's gun control regulations.

We have very strict controls here but no so strict as to be repressive. In order to have a shot gun or rifle in Canada you must first take a course on the safe handling, storeage, transportation, and discharge of fire arms and pass a standardized test regarding the same. Once you have done this you may apply for a PAL (possession and aquisition license)... once your application is received the federal government does a full security and background check (including health records). In order to get a hand gun or a long gun capable of holding more then 5 cartridges you must get a "prohibited arms license." This next license involves another class and further test followed by psych evaluations, more security checks and periodic surveillance. In order to get an automatic weapon or explosives you need a "prohibited arms licesne".... which is nearly impossible to get so we won't go into it.

In addition there are strict regulations on the types of weapons one can own, how they must be stored, how they must be transported, how that transportation must be approved by law enforcement (prohibited and restricted weapons), types of ammunition, locations where weapons can be dischared... and on and on.

What all this does is limit the amount of legal weapons in circulation and ensure (or at least improve the probablility) that the owners of these weapons are responsible. By controling the legal weapons the amount of illegal fire arms is impacted as there are fewer legal weapons that can be stolen or otherwise misappropriated. All told this results in fewer people having access to weapons, which in turn decreases the probability that fire arms will be used in crime. This should be obvious by our incredibly small gun crime rates.

BTW, there was one year with an increase in gun crime in Toronto, it's now well down again... below where it was even 10 years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj O'Callaghan Why are criminals constantly being brought into debate? It's the supposidly responsible people who flip out and go on the rampage. .

It's that criminal?

A criminal isn't always the guy that just came out of the slammer; laws apply to everyone

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r It's that criminal? A criminal isn't always the guy that just came out of the slammer; laws apply to everyone

I think perhaps he thought you were refering to career criminals.

It should be pointed out, however, it is difficult to distinguish the responsible gun owner from the criminal (non-career) until they have already committed a criminal act. Many people may be or at least seem to be responsible owners until the day they snap and cross the line to mass murderer. Stiffer penalties won't prevent someone who has suffered a psychotic episode with ready access to fire arms from useing said fire arms to end multiple lives, as those suffering a psychosis are not disposed to think all too rationally. At best stiffer penalties will lengthen the amount of time between offences, they do little to prevent the initial offence... the problem here is that the more horrific and deadly acts tend to be one offs or initial offeces.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I think perhaps he thought you were refering to career criminals.

Probably...

quote:

It should be pointed out, however, it is difficult to distinguish the responsible gun owner from the criminal (non-career) until they have already committed a criminal act. Many people may be or at least seem to be responsible owners until the day they snap and cross the line to mass murderer. Stiffer penalties won't prevent someone who has suffered a psychotic episode with ready access to fire arms from useing said fire arms to end multiple lives, as those suffering a psychosis are not disposed to think all too rationally. At best stiffer penalties will lengthen the amount of time between offences, they do little to prevent the initial offence... the problem here is that the more horrific and deadly acts tend to be one offs or initial offeces.

True, but the same can be said of people driving a weapon of couple thousand pounds of steel and glass everyday either; are we going to ban them because we're not sure when they're going to snap and drive into a farmer's market too?

The penalties should be compounding or exponential in some nature.
I understand this won't cover the one-time little loner freak Johnny's coming out of Mommy's basement with a shotgun but there really isn't a solution for this that's going to be fair.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r True, but the same can be said of people driving a weapon of couple thousand pounds of steel and glass everyday either; are we going to ban them because we're not sure when they're going to snap and drive into a farmer's market too? The penalties should be compounding or exponential in some nature. I understand this won't cover the one-time little loner freak Johnny's coming out of Mommy's basement with a shotgun but there really isn't a solution for this that's going to be fair.

The car argument is employing faulty reasoning. You cannot compare the two as the potential damage one can realistically cause with a motor vehicle is far lower then with a gun(s), moreover, there is little precedence for such events.

Don't get me wrong, I would never support an out and out ban of fire arms... I shoot for sport, I have a possession and acquisition license. I do, however, think it is only reasonable that there needs to be strict controls over who is and is not allowed to have access to fire arms.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r True, but the same can be said of people driving a weapon of couple thousand pounds of steel and glass everyday either; are we going to ban them because we're not sure when they're going to snap and drive into a farmer's market too? The penalties should be compounding or exponential in some nature. I understand this won't cover the one-time little loner freak Johnny's coming out of Mommy's basement with a shotgun but there really isn't a solution for this that's going to be fair.

The car argument is employing faulty reasoning. You cannot compare the two as the potential damage one can realistically cause with a motor vehicle is far lower then with a gun(s), moreover, there is little precedence for such events.

Don't get me wrong, I would never support an out and out ban of fire arms... I shoot for sport, I have a possession and acquisition license. I do, however, think it is only reasonable that there needs to be strict controls over who is and is not allowed to have access to fire arms.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Don't get me wrong, I would never support an out and out ban of fire arms... I shoot for sport, I have a possession and acquisition license. I do, however, think it is only reasonable that there needs to be strict controls over who is and is not allowed to have access to fire arms.

It's a joke really, $600US, green card, state criminal record check and a cursory federal criminal record check gets you a Glock 19, a heap of ammo and magazines. That isn't any kind of regulation, it's a lot harder to get a valid licence for a bike or car!
The main fault in all this is a lack of training, the lunatics, murderers and criminal element is the noisy and press-friendly side of firearms and their owners. You'll never be able to knock that element out of any society, you can try and prevent it but for every hole you plug, there's another they'll circumvent.

It's criminal in of itself that there is NO TRAINING for using a firearm which would at least help to lessen the horrendous amounts of accidental deaths which happen in the US and anywhere else if people where given a course in gun safety. How to shoot, how the safety works, how to keep the breach clear when carrying and how to secure the gun when it's not being used so kids and thieves can't make off with it. That will save a lot of lives.

I can't help but find it amusing how people would never question the wisdom and knowledge that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison and others showed when creating the Constitution of the United States. It's a brilliant document that has held up for over 200 years, and when you consider the differences in the world between then and now its even more amazing. But for some reason they question and analyze and debate if these same people really intended for all people to have the right to bear arms. They could not have been more clear in the way they wrote the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Note the clear use of the word "People" in the document. They didn't say the right of the militia or the right of the government, they specifically stated the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And they did not say "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed until the Federal military is so strong that there is no threat of outside invasion and no hope that an armed citizen militia could defeat it"

And for those who still cannot see the clarity of that statement, what they said outside the context of the Second Amendment show that they were clear in what they meant:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
--George Mason, 1788

"The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..."
--Samuel Adams 1789

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
-- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788

"Those who would give up essential liberties, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage then to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764

Gun control laws cannot protect us from what happened at VT. The police can't protect you either. The only way you can be protected from a crazy person bent on killing people is to have the ability to protect yourself.

1. VA Tech is a 'Gun-free Zone'.
2. Cho Seung-Hui was not normal. He was described as, 'the kid most likely to shoot up the school'. In 2005, he was declared an imminent 'danger to himself' and was referred to outpatient therapy, which is unclear whether he actually went or not.

So saying 'normal people' suddenly snap is false. A characteristic of these school shootings is that everyone knew the killer was mentally unstable years before.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton 1. VA Tech is a 'Gun-free Zone'. 2. Cho Seung-Hui was not normal. He was described as, 'the kid most likely to shoot up the school'. In 2005, he was declared an imminent 'danger to himself' and was referred to outpatient therapy, which is unclear whether he actually went or not. So saying 'normal people' suddenly snap is false. A characteristic of these school shootings is that everyone knew the killer was mentally unstable years before.

Exactly. And the Brady Law and other gun control regulations that the liberals just love so much were absolutely worthless at preventing what happened at VT. Yet another shining example of the failure of gun control.

Although I don't currently own a gun, I'm a responsible adult who would like to eventually own a firearm, for no particular reason than that the illusion of civilization breaks down *fast* when unknowns strike.

Stuff like Katrina or the complete failure of the authorities to protect us, from 9/11 to VA-Tech, etceteraadnausia. I'm thinking it would have to be a pretty grand scale situation to require me to offbalance my karma with a firearm, but I also don't see how responsible training and use could come in handy in certain hypothetical or variable unknown situations.

I guess I consider it a matter of personal survival in extremes; I don't think I'd even want it available to protect myself from thieves, since that kind of escalation could prove fatal to myself or others. That is to say, it can obviously spiral out of control fast. Hell, I'd probably just leave it unloaded in a lock box, out of sight and out of mind.

This is one area where I'm not all for equal rights though... I think the vast majority of people are better off never touching a gun or having to think about it. Why add that sort of element to ones life? The answer is different for everyone, and I can imagine that in a large number of individuals, that element would be added for all the wrong reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

And the militia ended up being the US army, airforce and navy.
It's worked quite well for keeping invaders off US soil well beyond living memory.

quote:

Note the clear use of the word "People" in the document. They didn't say the right of the militia or the right of the government, they specifically stated the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And it hasn't been so far.

quote:

And they did not say "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed until the Federal military is so strong that there is no threat of outside invasion and no hope that an armed citizen militia could defeat it"

Seriously, if the monkey in command decided tomorrow that he'd disband the parliment, outlaw opposition parties and declare martial law, is your faith in your military. Your fellow countrymen and women that low that you don't think that they would actually not carry out the orders of a madman?
If you don't have that faith in the people in your armed forces to do the things that is best for your country, the citizens they protect, their families and the very way of life they enjoy, provide some proof to the contrary that you see fit.
I for one having met some fair amount of US citizens and some of their military persons have no doubt what so ever if the commander in chief ordered it that they wouldn't have a bar of it.

quote:

And for those who still cannot see the clarity of that statement, what they said outside the context of the Second Amendment show that they were clear in what they meant:

Context, people take all kinds of things out of context for their own benefit. Religion, documents, business, heck lawyers exist for the sole purpose of taking litigation out of context!

quote:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." --George Mason, 1788

Actually voting to keep scumbags and lunatics out of office in a democracy is also quite effective and doesn't require much more than to turn up and vote with a bit of paper once the state is established.
One person with a gun doesn't vote with a bullet, that indeed is something the exact opposite of democratic process.

quote:

"The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..." --Samuel Adams 1789

They might have been peaceable back then, now they're kind of rowdy, afraid of their own neighbours and government to the point many seem to feel that armed resistance is a solution to the problem.
In which case we have a cultural norm in the US which is one of fear rather than freedom.

quote:

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788

I've personally seen citizen militias formed by a government beat people to death and leave their corpses on the side of the road like something they simply ran over on the way from A-to-B. I've also seen them torch an entire village, farmsteads and commit atrocities the likes of which most of the people here would only read about.
Make no mistake, they where well formed, well armed and had no compunctions about sending some lead around their ears to see who was in it for the free t-shirt and who was genuinely motivated.
An army however, is a militia which is well disciplined, hence I bolded the last part, and will typically behave itself around their own citizens. Especially in the case of the US armed forces who have long fought and died for that ideal of freedom.
Your average gun owner is not trained, they are not disciplined and they are certainly not responsible.
I can categorically state from my own experience, that if a government formed, citizen militia turns up on your doorstep, there's going to be some ugliness very soon on their foot heels.

quote:

"Those who would give up essential liberties, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." --- Benjamin Franklin

The US under Bush has given up a great deal of their liberty with the 'National Security' act running around sticking their noses in everyone's business with very little accountability and legally allowed to violate civil rights of those it thinks are a threat to the state with very little proof.
As someone who's seen law and justice end up going to anarchy and depredation in countries within 2 years, I suggest the US citizenry pull their head out of their collective lazy arseholes and smell what's up.
Because frankly, you're going to end up wearing what you deserve.

quote:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage then to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --- Thomas Jefferson, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764

Fair points but could Cesare have imagined the scale it's happening on now? It really is absolutely horrendous but the tool, the firearm, is only one part of problem isn't it.
There's the other problems backing it up with a culture of frequently displayed violence in the media, a culture of fear of your neighbours and a culture of litigation which makes even your good neighbour afraid to act for another's benefit for fear of being sued.
Why is it I ask you, that the US citizen has allowed their country to fall to these depths, drag out a pick and start digging to new lows?
When will enough happen that you finally get fed up and actually DO something about it instead of writing and whining about it?

quote:

Gun control laws cannot protect us from what happened at VT. The police can't protect you either. The only way you can be protected from a crazy person bent on killing people is to have the ability to protect yourself.

Yes, the crazy people eeeeehehehee!
If it's not the crazy people from overseas that threaten you, the culture of fear turns inward looking for fresh targets. Ask yourself is where your living where you want to be for yourself and your family the right place and what can you do about it today, rather than just buying a weapon as a placebo to alleviate a bit of temporary fear now.

I am not being a 'token US hater' like so many here, I'm simply asking you critically and bluntly, what the hell are you going to do about your country to make it better?

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard The car argument is employing faulty reasoning. You cannot compare the two as the potential damage one can realistically cause with a motor vehicle is far lower then with a gun(s), moreover, there is little precedence for such events.

Both are considered weapons.
You can be charged with using the vehicle as a weapon just as well as a gun; that was my point, regardless of occurance of the event.
You are right though, guns are much more popular

quote:

Don't get me wrong, I would never support an out and out ban of fire arms... I shoot for sport, I have a possession and acquisition license. I do, however, think it is only reasonable that there needs to be strict controls over who is and is not allowed to have access to fire arms.

Agreed. The big problem being, how does one determine that?
I overheard on the radio this morning that someone in the political realm wants people to undergo a on ONE-ON-ONE interview before being issued a license.
I sure hope they all have psychology degrees...

(sounds more like a massive cash grab to me...)

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton 1. VA Tech is a 'Gun-free Zone'. 2. Cho Seung-Hui was not normal. He was described as, 'the kid most likely to shoot up the school'. In 2005, he was declared an imminent 'danger to himself' and was referred to outpatient therapy, which is unclear whether he actually went or not. So saying 'normal people' suddenly snap is false. A characteristic of these school shootings is that everyone knew the killer was mentally unstable years before.

What about all the other shootings? Excuses, Excuses if you ask me. You guys are totally paranoid about crime and secuirty so you lock yourself up in a house with enough guns and ammo to take on a whole army.

One day theres no milk in fridge let's grab the magnum, M16 and shotgun and go do everyone over at work

Seriously if you lot want to act all tough and big. Join the army and the police they'll give you a gun.

Please excuse me, as I am entering this debate a little late and, unfortunately, with some missing information.

However, I was curious as to how this kid acquired the gun. Did he himself own it or was it someone elses. The reason being, if i were to own a gun and allow someone else to use it, I should be held accountable to some extent.

But if the gun was owned by the kid and licensed to him, then we cannot do much to stop things like this from happening. Maybe we can run a psycho-analyzation on all people who get guns but really even pschos should be given the same rights as normal people...

What i see in situations like this is a problem reaction solution type of deal... people see that there is a problem of easily acquired guns because of one person having a gun and shooting 30+ people and react in horror.....therefore they present the solution of bannning guns.... But is the solution derived from objectivity? I would argue otherwise and say that when faced with current and immediate issues that horrify us....we become prone to thinking subjectively despite how isolated an incident may actually be....

we are talking about one person out of how many college students in the United States here...how are we going to change a law and deprive rights because of one person....seems a little crazy to say the least....

let us also not forget that people should be better prepared for situations like this....if any of you saw the timeline for this incident....you would be surprised at the time it took for the campus security to react....

quote:

Originally posted by Dj O'Callaghan What about all the other shootings? Excuses, Excuses if you ask me. You guys are totally paranoid about crime and secuirty so you lock yourself up in a house with enough guns and ammo to take on a whole army. One day theres no milk in fridge let's grab the magnum, M16 and shotgun and go do everyone over at work Seriously if you lot want to act all tough and big. Join the army and the police they'll give you a gun.

1. What shootings are you referring to?

Other than that, you're just taking pock-shots in your arguments. Do you have anything of actual substance to say other than we're paranoid gun-toting lunatics?

quote:

Please excuse me, as I am entering this debate a little late and, unfortunately, with some missing information. However, I was curious as to how this kid acquired the gun. Did he himself own it or was it someone elses. The reason being, if i were to own a gun and allow someone else to use it, I should be held accountable to some extent. But if the gun was owned by the kid and licensed to him, then we cannot do much to stop things like this from happening. Maybe we can run a psycho-analyzation on all people who get guns but really even pschos should be given the same rights as normal people... What i see in situations like this is a problem reaction solution type of deal... people see that there is a problem of easily acquired guns because of one person having a gun and shooting 30+ people and react in horror.....therefore they present the solution of bannning guns.... But is the solution derived from objectivity? I would argue otherwise and say that when faced with current and immediate issues that horrify us....we become prone to thinking subjectively despite how isolated an incident may actually be.... we are talking about one person out of how many college students in the United States here...how are we going to change a law and deprive rights because of one person....seems a little crazy to say the least....

To answer your question, Cho legally bought the gun at 'Roanoke Gun Store' for around 500$.

If the fact that Cho Seung-Hui was declared a 'danger to himself or others' had showed up on his background check, he would not have been sold the gun. Simple as that.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton 1. What shootings are you referring to? Other than that, you're just taking pock-shots in your arguments. Do you have anything of actual substance to say other than we're paranoid gun-toting lunatics?

I'm refering to every single shooting which happens in schools and workplaces in the states.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...shooting316.xml

There is no point even me debating with you lot. Your a fucking stubborn narrow minded bunch, due to paranoid morals you've been brought up with and the bullshit 2nd ammendment created centuries ago.

There is a law in the UK in chester and Nottingham it's legal to kill a Welshman with a bow and arrow, well we don't do that.

We're all not going to come to any agreement on this debate. Only time I'm going to bother listen is to a witness of such events and the victims friends and family. Hopefully most of us will be lucky never to see such an event happen in front of our very own eyes.

Have a nice day and god fucking bless America's fantastic laws

Callaghan you're retarded. There are 300 million people in the U.S.. If one every year does something like what happened at VT that is 1 person out of 300,000,000 taking this sort of action. The odds of getting struck by lightning are higher than the odds of someone doing something like this.

Saying that we're all gun crazy paranoid hillbillies is about as stereotypical and wrong as me saying Aussies are a bunch of redneck outback hiking, fosters drinking, surfers.


And just for good measure, many of the cities in the U.S. with the most strict gun control laws are the same cities that have the highest rate of gun related violence. Just like we keep saying, you take guns away from the innocent and you're only leaving them less protected.

None of this in anyway means I'm for everyone owning whatever they want, but making assumptions like you are is the sign of ignorance.


"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
Robert A. Heinlein

Allow only the authorities access to firearms

People that trust in any authority to be the only ones with weapons have a diluted sense because they forget that they can die at a governments' hand from that trust just like those in Stalinist Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Idi Amins' Uganda, just to name a few.

Re: Allow only the authorities access to firearms

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 People that trust in any authority to be the only ones with weapons have a diluted sense because they forget that they can die at a governments' hand from that trust just like those in Stalinist Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Idi Amins' Uganda, just to name a few.

yeah, lets compare advanced liberal democracies, with inherent checks and balances, with despotic regimes that had neither the social nor political infrastructure to protect the people from its government. total non sequitur.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 And just for good measure, many of the cities in the U.S. with the most strict gun control laws are the same cities that have the highest rate of gun related violence. Just like we keep saying, you take guns away from the innocent and you're only leaving them less protected.

firstly, source?

secondly, how many of these murderers were actually "innocent" before having that bad day that left people dead? this constant argument that its the "criminals" committing offences is ridiculous. yes, they become criminals when they shoot someone, but how nice would it be to live in a society where people didnt have immediate access to whatever firearm they wished?

your illegal gun trade is a DIRECT result of the legal trade.

i would also like some evidence presented that states that "illegal" gun crime is a result of real criminal activity, as opposed to someone that has (legally or illegally) obtained a firearm and happens to use it for whatever purpose.

as long as you have a large trade in legal weapons, the number of those weapons flowing to the black market will be huge.

Re: Re: Allow only the authorities access to firearms

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN firstly, source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.
The best example in the whole country. Our capital.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN secondly, how many of these murderers were actually "innocent" before having that bad day that left people dead? this constant argument that its the "criminals" committing offences is ridiculous. yes, they become criminals when they shoot someone, but how nice would it be to live in a society where people didnt have immediate access to whatever firearm they wished?

People will kill no matter what they have available to them. Taking the weapons away won't reduce the issue since it's an inanimate object. You can kill someone just as easily with a hammer as you can a gun.

Now, you'll likely want to say something asinine like you normally do about them not being able to kill as many people, and before you do I'll remind you that most shooting deaths are limited in the number of victims from the beginning so numbers wouldn't fluctuate a whole lot . Instances like what happened at VT are very rare considering the population. It's also been noted as of today that he shouldn't have been allowed to own the guns either, so someone fucked up big time when they ran his background check.

Now, what's to say he wouldn't have still killed. Nothing. That was his plan from the beginning. His methods would have adjusted, but he was still going to do it.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN your illegal gun trade is a DIRECT result of the legal trade.

That's your opinion. Here in Indy we have moderate gun control laws, and we have relatively few gun related deaths. Read about the craziness in D.C. and you'll see they have some of the most strict and the highest death rate despite having half the people we do.

Thus your argument that because of the legal trade the illegal trade is there is false. The illegal trade is going to be there regardless of the legal trade.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i would also like some evidence presented that states that "illegal" gun crime is a result of real criminal activity, as opposed to someone that has (legally or illegally) obtained a firearm and happens to use it for whatever purpose.

If someone acquired a firearm illegally that is a criminal act. If someone that owns a firearm uses it for something they know to be wrong that is a criminal act. You just pretty much just asked the same question without wording it the same way.

Have fun reading.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN as long as you have a large trade in legal weapons, the number of those weapons flowing to the black market will be huge.

Wrong. I know plenty of people with guns that are more than responsible about owning them. It's the people that are not interested in being responsible in the first place that make that an issue.

Funny thought here. Should we take cars away from people because of drunk driving deaths? Drunk driving deaths and firearm related deaths are pretty close, but half of firearm related deaths are really suicides so it's not even close when you really get down to the actual numbers.

So, cars are just as capable of killing people as guns are which is to say that they aren't. It's the people operating them that's the problem. A responsible operator in both cases is required, but we aren't rallying to outlaw cars or alcohol. No, guns are definitely worse. People kill themselves with them more often than they do others.

Hell, I'm all about getting rid of people that talk on their cellphones while driving. It's being found to be just as deadly if not more so(studies aren't entirely conclusive yet) than drunk driving. I don't see anyone bitching about people and their cellphones. No, take the guns away. That fixes everything.

Re: Re: Re: Allow only the authorities access to firearms

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C. The best example in the whole country. Our capital.

did you even read that page?

quote:

Critics, citing numerous statistics, have questioned the efficiency of these restrictions. The combination in Washington of strict gun-restriction laws and high levels of gun violence is sometimes used to criticize gun-restriction laws in general as ineffective. However, a significant portion of firearms used in crime are either obtained on the second-hand market or in neighboring states. Results from the ATF's Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative indicate that the percentage of imported guns involved in crimes is tied to the stringency of local firearm laws.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 People will kill no matter what they have available to them. Taking the weapons away won't reduce the issue since it's an inanimate object. You can kill someone just as easily with a hammer as you can a gun.

not at all true. the actual process for killing someone with a firearm is "clean" compared to bashing their skull in with a hammer. it is also far far easier to do. if they were relatively similar you'd still have armies using hammers

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 Now, what's to say he wouldn't have still killed. Nothing. That was his plan from the beginning. His methods would have adjusted, but he was still going to do it.

irrelevant. theres no way in hell he wouldve been able to knife or stab or bash 30 people.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 That's your opinion. Here in Indy we have moderate gun control laws, and we have relatively few gun related deaths. Read about the craziness in D.C. and you'll see they have some of the most strict and the highest death rate despite having half the people we do.

oh, just my opinion you reckon? how can you possibly argue that the greatet number of guns in any population has no effect on those guns being misused or misappropriate? who's being asinine? lets go back to that page you gave me shall we?

quote:

However, a significant portion of firearms used in crime are either obtained on the second-hand market or in neighboring states.

looks like i was right, huh?

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 Thus your argument that because of the legal trade the illegal trade is there is false. The illegal trade is going to be there regardless of the legal trade.

if you had even bothered to read that page you would realise how silly youre sounding. in a federal system its useless to debate a state v state situation, where (as already noted) one can simply go elsewhere to purchase your weapons.

now, the illegal trade is going to be there NOW, because you've had access to such weapons for a long period of time. i have already posted elsewhere that america has fvcked itself. its a lost cause. again, your notion that more guns around does not mean more misuse is ridiculously illogical.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 If someone acquired a firearm illegally that is a criminal act. If someone that owns a firearm uses it for something they know to be wrong that is a criminal act. You just pretty much just asked the same question without wording it the same way.

oh i see! so those that buy their guns legally and then kill 32 people, woohoo! easy access to firearms with minimal checks hasnt at all contributed to this massacre at all! all the other advanced nations that have much stricter gun control laws, our much much lower incidences of gun-related violence must be related to something other than the prevelance of firearms in our society.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 Have fun reading. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

thanks!

quote:

The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 Wrong. I know plenty of people with guns that are more than responsible about owning them. It's the people that are not interested in being responsible in the first place that make that an issue.

oh, because you know heaps of people with guns that are responsible then its a non-issue! wtf? your reasoning makes NO sense. there are plenty of law-abiding people with ready-access to firearms, that one day decide theyre NOT going to be law-abiding. how many kids have accessed daddy's locked cabinet and then shot up their school? how much more often does this happen in the US than any other comparable country?

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 Funny thought here. Should we take cars away from people because of drunk driving deaths? Drunk driving deaths and firearm related deaths are pretty close, and half of firearm related deaths are suicides so it's not even close when you really get down to the actual numbers. So, cars are just as capable of killing people as guns are which is to say that they aren't. It's the people operating them that's the problem. A responsible operator in both cases is required, but we aren't rallying to outlaw cars or alcohol. No, guns are definitely worse. People kill themselves with them more often than they do others. Hell, I'm all about getting rid of people that talk on their cellphones while driving is being found to be just as deadly if not more so(studies aren't entirely conclusive yet) than drunk driving. I don't see anyone bitching about people and their cellphones. No, take the guns away. That fixes everything.

dumbest analogy ever. the difference being that cars serve a purpose OTHER THAN killing other drivers. the handgun is designed for killing people. it serves no other useful purpose.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.