[simonjames]

when is this going to stop?

I heard a report from some (US-based) gun lover the other day - he said that all students should carry guns. His logic being that they (the Virginia Tech students) would have been able to defend themselves. Its a whole lot like the chicken and the egg story - they wouldn't need guns if guns weren't so readily available.

No other first world country has shoot ups on this scale and frequency - what is it with the States?

[Laminar]

So are we going to have two gun control threads at once?

[G4ME]

Originally Posted by simonjames 

No other first world country has shoot ups on this scale and frequency - what is it with the States?

proof?

at least we don't have suicide bombers every other day.

[BlueSky]

This is going to go well.

[Chuckit]

Are we going to have a thread about every crime committed anywhere?

[invisibleX]

People kill people. I'm all for keeping deadly weapons to a moderate level but pretending that taking away a means will prevent the act is ridiculous.

Honestly I'm surprised more of them don't use explosives. I'm sure if guns became difficult enough to obtain you'd see far more bombings.

[macintologist]

If guns were all banned and where hard to get, then nutcases who wanted to committ mass murders would just use other means, like bombs.

[anonymac]

How about instead of banning guns, we just ban liberals. Liberalism is a threat to our republic and the freedom Americans enjoy. While I am for freedom of expression, any expression that endangers our natural rights such as liberalism, communism, terrorism, should be strictly punished. Do these liberal airheads really believe that the only way to obtain a gun is through a gunstore??? If you think that a person who will commit a crime is going to buy weapons through a gun store, you should really check to see if you still have a brain.

[centerchannel68]

Hey guess what? Someone died in a car accident today too. Maybe we should ban cars, afterall, it happens a lot here in the states.

PS: What country are you from, so I can remember not to visit it or buy products from it?

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

How about instead of banning guns, we just ban liberals. Liberalism is a threat to our republic and the freedom Americans enjoy. While I am for freedom of expression, any expression that endangers our natural rights such as liberalism, communism, terrorism, should be strictly punished.

HAHA

Do these liberal airheads really believe that the only way to obtain a gun is through a gunstore??? If you think that a person who will commit a crime is going to buy weapons through a gun store, you should really check to see if you still have a brain.

uh, No?

[centerchannel68]

Hint: Criminals get guns illegally, because they are criminals and don't care about laws.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Hey guess what? Someone died in a car accident today too. Maybe we should ban cars, afterall, it happens a lot here in the states.

PS: What country are you from, so I can remember not to visit it or buy products from it?

I could get behind a gun ban. Not as an effective means of preventing violence of any kind just to cut down on the mentality of a point-and-squeze weapon.

If you think about it we really don't need guns. They're horrifically bad defensive weapons, require far too little skill to operate at a basic level, and are way too attractive for politicians (ban guns, preserve rights of gun owners, etc).

[Kerrigan]

Cat's non-existent rebuttal characteristically puts no-one to shame.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

They're horrifically bad defensive weapons, require far too little skill to operate at a basic level, and are way too attractive for politicians (ban guns, preserve rights of gun owners, etc).

My 'independant contractor' friend would disagree with you. He uses guns to defend himself daily. Have you ever fired a gun?

What I find hilarious is that all the people who call for banning all guns are the same people who have zero experience with them, and zero knowledge about them.... except for movies and the news. If that was my only knowledge about them, I suppose I'd be stupid enough to believe a gun ban was a good idea also. Luckily, I'm not that stupid.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

My 'independant contractor' friend would disagree with you. He uses guns to defend himself daily. Have you ever fired a gun?

What I find hilarious is that all the people who call for banning all guns are the same people who have zero experience with them, and zero knowledge about them.... except for movies and the news. If that was my only knowledge about them, I suppose I'd be stupid enough to believe a gun ban was a good idea also. Luckily, I'm not that stupid.

Yes I have. Your example is lacking something. Content.

Really, who apart from people whose jobs require gun ownership (which may include your friend) needs guns?

Insulting people only proves that you are a dick. I'd like to believe you're just a very angry man, its not easy.

[centerchannel68]

I'd say anybody who's getting robbed, raped, assaulted, or murdered probably needs a gun. Until all that stuff stops, I think there's definitely quite a few reasons for guns to stick around.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

Yes I have.

BTW, what kind of gun did you fire? Where? When? Please fill in the details, because I don't believe you.

[IceEnclosure]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

BTW, what kind of gun did you fire? Where? When? Please fill in the details, because I don't believe you.

A Glock. A range. A few weeks ago. Believe me now?

Oh wait..

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

I'd say anybody who's getting robbed, raped, assaulted, or murdered probably needs a gun. Until all that stuff stops, I think there's definitely quite a few reasons for guns to stick around.

What did I say about defensive uses? Even people who train have difficulty hitting another person. Ideally you want a defensive weapon to be non-lethal. Makes it easier to use, generally more effective (if someone with a gun gets shot, unless you're very good or very lucky, they're going to shoot back), and far more humane.

If you mean vs. unarmed assailants then a gun is excessive force by far. Effective? Yes. But how many stories do we see of some moronic punk paying for his stupidity by being shot in self defense?

Violence and guns themselves are not valid arguments for guns. However a gun ban would put much more emphasis on other means of self defense that most people discount because of the easy solution a gun provides.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

BTW, what kind of gun did you fire? Where? When? Please fill in the details, because I don't believe you.

Originally Posted by IceEnclosure 

A range. A few weeks ago. Believe me now?

Oh wait..

My own gun use proves nothing because your original argument is invalid and circular to boot.

I'm sorry but I don't feel compelled to prove myself to someone who doesn't show the slightest bit of respect, curtesy, or civility to anyone reading these forums.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

What did I say about defensive uses?

You said nobody possibly needs one unless their job has to do with it. Plenty of people need guns who don't have jobs in law enforcement/security/the armed forces. So basically you said that nobody needs one, except them, ignoring all the people getting murdered/raped/beaten/robbed.

Even people who train have difficulty hitting another person.

That's bullshit. That asian kid wasn't really an expert and he managed to hit 32 people. It's very easy to shoot someone, if you know how to use a gun, which isn't all that hard.

Ideally you want a defensive weapon to be non-lethal.

Ideally for who? If someone breaks into my house with the intention of robbing me, hurting me, hurting my family, I want them dead. Dead= less lawsuits, less taxes, and zero chances of them coming back for revenge.

Makes it easier to use, generally more effective (if someone with a gun gets shot, unless you're very good or very lucky, they're going to shoot back), and far more humane.

They are easy to use. Apparently you've never fired a gun before. All you have to do is make sure it's loaded, turn off the safety, and pull a little switch. Although precise, they are ridiculously simple devices, and very easy to use. Even children can use guns, as many war mongers in Africa are proud to point out.

Violence and guns themselves are not valid arguments for guns.

And violence and guns themselves are not valid reasons for banning guns.

However a gun ban would put much more emphasis on other means of self defense that most people discount because of the easy solution a gun provides.

No, it would disarm the law abiding public, which would allow criminals to take advantage of the situation by increasing their robberies, murders, and rapes. This has been documented in almost any situation where guns were banned: Rape, crime, and murder go up. If you want rape and crime to skyrocket, please fight for the banning of all guns.

[IceEnclosure]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

I'm sorry but I don't feel compelled to prove myself to someone who doesn't show the slightest bit of respect, curtesy, or civility to anyone reading these forums.

heh, that's a new approach to dealing with the boy.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

My own gun use proves nothing because your original argument is invalid and circular to boot.

I'm sorry but I don't feel compelled to prove myself to someone who doesn't show the slightest bit of respect, curtesy, or civility to anyone reading these forums.

Backpedaling already? That was easy. BTW, I don't feel sorry for someone who doesn't show the slightest bit of reason, logic, or rational thought on these forums. Your arguments are weak and you have zero first hand experience about the subject you're attempting to talk about.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by IceEnclosure 

heh, that's a new approach to dealing with the boy.

The boy? Please Ice, don't pull a Railroader and start baiting me by referring to me as a child. That's super dumb.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

hmm, let me think...

If all of the students at VT had guns what would happen? Lets look at this scenario...

Everybody on campus has a gun, every geek, frat boy, etc. So a frat boy shows off his gun and some other frat boys come over and show off theirs, etc. There're playing with there guns, showing them off to everybody, girls, etc. Then, oops, one goes off and kills someone. There is a public outrage, "Why do these kids have guns?!" they say, all guns from the campus are taken away (other than campus police, of coarse) and everybody is happy. A few years later 32 people are killed from a gunman. Again, there is public outrage. Gun activists say that if all the sudents had guns that they'd be safe, the opposite side says the that none of the students should have guns and that guns should be outlawed (for civilians ad-least) because of this. They are outlawed, and life goes on. A few years later a bomb goes off at another campus and kills, say, 50 people. Public outrage again. Later it is found out that one of the students was chasing the bomber before the bomb went off and the news networks propose that if the student had a gun that he could have saved 50 people. The public takes this evidence to congress to get gun laws changed. Gun laws are changed and now everybody on campus(es) have guns.

Repeat.

Remember, this is only one in a number of scenarios.

[centerchannel68]

Ha, nice. Personally I'm not convinced that guns on campus is a good idea, but some of these liberal nutballs are suggesting we ban ALL guns, so only the bad guys have them. That is just stupid.

[Chuckit]

I don't think most people are seriously suggesting a complete ban on guns. Just limiting gun ownership to only people who really need them rather than anyone who wants them.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Ha, nice. Personally I'm not convinced that guns on campus is a good idea, but some of these liberal nutballs are suggesting we ban ALL guns, so only the bad guys have them. That is just stupid.

Ha, just like beer and loosing weight, the key is moderation.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't think most people are seriously suggesting a complete ban on guns. Just limiting gun ownership to only people who really need them rather than anyone who wants them.

Good point.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't think most people are seriously suggesting a complete ban on guns. Just limiting gun ownership to only people who really need them rather than anyone who wants them.

How do you determine need? A governmental system? Seems to me it'd be a lot more efficient to just allow people who think they need them to get them, but have more background checks.

Honestly, ... the whole VA shooting thing, yeah, gun control failed...but on the same note, society failed. Nobody helped this guy from becoming a lunatic.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

How do you determine need? A governmental system? Seems to me it'd be a lot more efficient to just allow people who think they need them to get them, but have more background checks.

More and BETTER background checks.

Honestly, ... the whole VA shooting thing, yeah, gun control failed...but on the same note, society failed. Nobody helped this guy from becoming a lunatic.

You have a point.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

More and BETTER background checks.

The system that is implemented now alreadys fails. It's easier and cheaper for me to buy a handgun from some random person in the Bay Area than it is from a dealer.

Drugs are illegal but are easier to get when under 21 than alcohol is.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

The system that is implemented now alreadys fails. It's easier and cheaper for me to buy a handgun from some random person in the Bay Area than it is from a dealer.

Drugs are illegal but are easier to get when under 21 than alcohol is.

Of coarse. We can't cover and prevent everything.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

If you think about it we really don't need guns. They're horrifically bad defensive weapons, require far too little skill to operate at a basic level, and are way too attractive for politicians (ban guns, preserve rights of gun owners, etc).

Guns are lousy weapons. I prefer a good machete.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

That's bullshit. That asian kid wasn't really an expert and he managed to hit 32 people. It's very easy to shoot someone, if you know how to use a gun, which isn't all that hard.

Granted shooting cowering people at close range isn't too hard, hitting a specific moving target with a limited amount of bullets is. Statistics say you will hit something eventually. Especially when shooting into a crowd.


Which somehow turned into an argument for semi-automatics.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

This has been documented in almost any situation where guns were banned: Rape, crime, and murder go up. If you want rape and crime to skyrocket, please fight for the banning of all guns.

Point to this valid documentation please.

Meanwhile we have:

The valuable research by Professor Kate Warner and Simon Sherwood of the University of Tasmania's Faculty of Law shows that today there is good generalised jurisdictional commitment to the 1996 National Agreement on Gun Laws and the 2002 National Agreement on Handguns. The main thrust of these important Agreements, in regard to gun registration, bans on certain semi - auto guns, genuine reason for gun ownership, safety training, safe storage, etc have been taken on board by the six states and two territories - but there are several areas where greater compliance is needed. There is good reason to believe that these changes contributed in a major way to the fact that today about 350 fewer Australians die each year from gun wounds compared to the situation in the 1970' and 1980's - no mean achievement.

And of course our trusty http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita

Try and find Norway on that list. A country where not even the police carry firearms (on a regular basis).

[Kevin]

Ah I like always. Turning a horrible event into a political shilling opportunity.

Just like I claimed always happened in the last thread.

See you on page 23 after 4 people gets banned and this thread goes nowhere.

BTW wasn't the other one moved to the PL when it got political? This one started out that way.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Are we going to have a thread about every crime committed anywhere?

If we do, I hope thought crimes are included.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by IceEnclosure 

A Glock. A range. A few weeks ago. Believe me now?

Oh wait..

Are you a regular shooter? How were you trained and where? What caliber was the Glock? What other firearms have you used?

You see, while "zero experience" is a bit of an overbroad statement, in my experience most people who "hate guns" have so little experience, training, knowledge and exposure to firearms in general that they lack the background to reason effectively about them.

After the VT shootings I saw (briefly-it was more illogic than my stomach could take) a "debate" on PBS over the issue. One commentator brought up the expiration of the "Assault Weapons Ban" as a cause of this tragedy (and blamed the president for it!). When another asked how that had anything to do with the crime, a third piped in "he just sprayed bullets," implying that the VT shooter had automatic weapons. He did not. He had SEMIautomatic pistols, one in 9mm and the other in .22LR. This supposedly intelligent and educated commentator was basically talking out the wrong bodily orifice with his statement because he had absolutely NO clue what he was talking about. And his self assured "authority" sways other people who are even more ignorant about the facts of this situation, gun laws in the U. S., and firearms in general.

As has probably become apparent here, I believe that the Second Amendment is an important foundation to civil liberty and freedom in the U. S. I have studied firearms so that I would be knowledgeable enough to make reasoned decisions about them. I should also point out that I have studied the laws, and the arguments against private gun ownership so that I could also make reasoned decisions about THEM. When the vitriol and emotional arguments are stripped away, the data support MORE gun ownership by law abiding citizens. This is not only applicable in the U. S., but in other countries as well; in the UK and Australia, where almost all firearms ownership has been banned or severely restricted, the rate of personal crimes has spiked. The conclusion that criminals (who by definition do not obey laws) prey on the defenseless and see severe gun control as "open season" on the law abiding citizenry is fairly obvious, but it is also backed up by data collected through interviews with incarcerated criminals-they say unarmed people are "easy pickings," and at the same time that they avoid attacking people they believe are armed.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

If you think that a person who will commit a crime is going to buy weapons through a gun store, you should really check to see if you still have a brain.

Didn't the kid who shot up VA tech get one of his guns at a gun store? I believe so.

I think this shooting as well as the one at NASA recently are copycat crimes. This will happen for awhile until the VA tech massacre cools down and loses its press coverage. Every nut with a gun who happens to be in a bad mood is going to start toting his weapon to get attention.

Clearly, current laws don't do a thing to keep guns out of the hands of people who even have a long history of psychiatric illness. All guns except those used for hunting and law enforcement should be banned. Yes, there will be cases where someone would have been able to defend themselves with the use of a gun--but those cases are greatly dwarfed by those committed by nutball gun lovers who go over the edge and criminals. That's not to say gun ownership is the only cause of all this violence-it isn't-but banning guns would be a significant albeit not complete step toward fixing the problem.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Point to this valid documentation please.

Meanwhile we have:


And of course our trusty http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita

Try and find Norway on that list. A country where not even the police carry firearms (on a regular basis).

As I stated in the other thread, it's the anti-gun culture that determines the success of a gun ban, not the other way around.

The whole reason gun bans exist in countries like Norway or Japan is because the culture itself is anti-gun. Creating a ban in a country like the US wouldn't magically fix our gun violence problems. In the context of our culture it would indeed simply disarm the law abiding citizens while those criminally minded people who really wanted one, would get one.

Just like the drug example, as long as there are willing customers we will have a problem.

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

If that was my only knowledge about them, I suppose I'd be stupid enough to believe a gun ban was a good idea also. Luckily, I'm not that stupid.

Aren't you the author of this "I'm convinced, let's go." quote, right after the infamous 2003 Bush/Powell-Show? So, you're not exactly smart or knowledgeable, either...
I don't mean to sound exceedingly rude, but a few more "checks and balances" on your own depiction shouldn't be a bad thing...

Regards
PB.

[OldManMac]

A few points;

ghporter is spot on in his assessment.

smacintush is spot on in his assessment.

A lot of people, here and elsewhere, keep making the same basic mistake over and over. They blame the method used, a gun, a knife, an axe, etc., instead of the motivation behind the act. They use emotion, rather than reason, to come to their conclusions, which of course are false. We're not going to stop killing each other until we figure out why, and it has nothing to do with guns. They're an easy target for those who want a quick answer, but we live in an incredibly complex society, made up of many different belief systems, and the answer just isn't that simple.

Our culture, and country, is one that is based on gun ownership. Many other countries have no such history, so they don't have the gun violence issue that the U. S. does. People in those nations simply don't believe they need a gun to "defend" themselves; there are still many places where people leave their cars and their homes unlocked. If you ask most Canadians outside of major cities, they would tell you that. In the U. S., partially because of the sensational nature of our news (which results in threads like this being posted), we live in a culture of fear, so we arm ourselves to the teeth.

The real issue that we need to figure out is how to change a country that has a history of violence into a less violent one, and, believe it or not, that actually is happening, except for homicides, which declined from 1993 until 2005, when firearm related crime has crept up somewhat, although violent crimes have continued a downward trend. Without getting into a lot of data, it might be instructive for us to look at actual trends and numbers before we post another senationalistic thread, based on hysteria and unfounded personal beliefs.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/vsx2.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm

There's a wealth of information on these sites, beyond what I've linked to here.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by G4ME 

proof?

at least we don't have suicide bombers every other day.

Canada?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

I could get behind a gun ban. Not as an effective means of preventing violence of any kind just to cut down on the mentality of a point-and-squeze weapon.

If you think about it we really don't need guns. They're horrifically bad defensive weapons, require far too little skill to operate at a basic level, and are way too attractive for politicians (ban guns, preserve rights of gun owners, etc).

Yeah, you're right. Ordinary people don't really need anything more than some RAID in a can to defend themselves. Bad defensive weapons? Compared to what? Far too little skill is a good thing, unless you've got plenty of leisure time to spend at the range. News flash -- the "little people" need self-protection out here, too. We don't have gated communities and cops on every corner, either.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Yeah, you're right. Ordinary people don't really need anything more than some RAID in a can to defend themselves. Bad defensive weapons? Compared to what? Far too little skill is a good thing, unless you've got plenty of leisure time to spend at the range. News flash -- the "little people" need self-protection out here, too. We don't have gated communities and cops on every corner, either.

What country are you living in? You make it sound like if you dare step outside your home without a machine gun your doomed to be raped, robbed and murdered. You're exaggerating and unless you're a head of state you don't need any special protection.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

A few points;

You know, it's no big thing to find myself in agreement with the same people over and over again. But the rare times when I find myself applauding a hammer.nail.head post by someone I usually don't agree with- that puts a big smile on my face.

[Rumor]

Sometimes having a gun for defense can be a good thing. If the gun owner knows how and when to use it.

Example:

A couple of weeks ago, a fisherman docked his boat at the harbor here. He left his boat and came back to a transient(sp?) rummaging through his boat. He told the guy to leave and the guy got violent and stabbed the fisherman in the chest. The fisherman (in his sixties) retrieved one of his guns and shot the transient three times in the legs (notice, he wasn't aiming for a kill shot, though I would in that situation). The transient began to hobble away and the fisherman retrieved another gun and left off a few more as the other guy fled.

When the police arrived, he unloaded his guns and handed them over. No charges were filed against the fisherman and his guns will be returned.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

A lot of people, here and elsewhere, keep making the same basic mistake over and over. They blame the method used, a gun, a knife, an axe, etc., instead of the motivation behind the act. They use emotion, rather than reason, to come to their conclusions, which of course are false. We're not going to stop killing each other until we figure out why, and it has nothing to do with guns. They're an easy target for those who want a quick answer, but we live in an incredibly complex society, made up of many different belief systems, and the answer just isn't that simple.

I agree that gun violence is more complicated than dealing only with the weapons themselves and those causes should also be addressed. A person's motivations have everything to do with the deaths caused by guns. However, a gun makes it very easy for a deranged individual to express his motivations much more efficiently and deadly than if that weapon weren't available to that person. A gun is immediate--you can kill a great many people while you're still angry or depressed over something. I don't think the VA tech shooter would have been able to kill over 30 people with a knife--come on. He could have planted some type of bomb, but building a decent one from available materials takes a certain technical know how that most don't have(even abortion clinic bombers couldn't get a death count that high). A molotov cocktail or a pipe bomb wouldn't likely kill 30 people either.

There are complicated reasons why people seem to be getting more violent and there is often contradictory research. There is one common denominator among theories of gun violence and that's the gun itself--that's why people focus on it--and rightly so.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

I don't think the VA tech shooter would have been able to kill over 30 people with a knife--come on. He could have planted some type of bomb, but building a decent one from available materials takes a certain technical know how that most don't have(even abortion clinic bombers couldn't get a death count that high). A molotov cocktail or a pipe bomb wouldn't likely kill 30 people either.

You lack imagination. That, or you haven't tried researching the art of bomb-making or machete-wielding at the local library's Internet kiosk.