My grand father has a gun shop, he carries no assault weapons unless someone orders one or he ends up buying one off of someone trying to sell, if gun laws were any more strict it could put him out of business
Maybe your grandfather should get out of the instruments of death industry.
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Not quite true. the internet was developed from ARPANET which was used by the military for research and other things.
Actually it is true. I didn't say that the military didn't use it, I said it's purpose is not for killing.
Yea see stealing them would have made him a criminal regardless of no criminal past. also to note even from his own mother that the boy was not mentally there. he had some mental issues.
evidently she didn't get help for them.
You know I'm not sure how to respond to this. It's like you don't want to understand that his rampage included more than just killing children.
His little crime spree was encompassed by these actions and until he started his crime spree he was a law abiding citizen, with no criminal record. Your argument just sounds incredibly stupid to me and I don't see how you can think that it's valid.
Quote from Bobtwisty »
My grand father has a gun shop, he carries no assault weapons unless someone orders one or he ends up buying one off of someone trying to sell, if gun laws were any more strict it could put him out of business, as others have said, the only people hurt by this are the legal gun owners and businesses, if we want to go as far as banning assault weapons or semi autos or whatever else then we need to also ban/restrict some of the crap people see all the time, there are quite a few games that you can walk around and kill innocent people, there are countless movies in which the same happens. If we have our gun rights taken away or limited then what's the next step, ban violent movies or video games?
Two things; first this is a slippery slope argument and second this point has already been covered in this thread.
It's amusing that you can't use English properly: maybe you should say something relevant instead of just typing statements that make you feel smart.
Since you're resorting to policing typos, it's pretty safe to say that even you don't believe that you can keep up with this debate.
I'm poking fun at you for not providing an argument: why is my analogy invalid?
Care to explain how you would kill somebody with the magnetic field on a computer hard drive that represents the software that is a video game?
Why are you distracting yourself with irrelevant details? This kind of side argument only functions as a distraction. Plus, it's really stupid.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
here is the issue with this statement. It doesn't matter where you draw the line at the only people that are going to obey the line are law abiding citizens.
People that are willing to go and kill 20 children will find a way to do it no matter what ban or restriction you put in place.
Other criminal elements will continue to operate the same way regardless of your restrictions.
Okay, so this is another dodge of the question, but I'll move on since it appears the pro-gun crowd isn't willing to answer a perfectly good question.
If what you say is true, why don't we see grenades, RPGs, and full-auto machine guns used in these mass murders?
There is a huge different between an assault rifle and what this guy used.
An assault rifle has a multi-selector that can go from semi-auto, 3 round burst, full auto.
there are major restrictions on these types of weapons. To legally own one you must have a FTA approved license. cost is about 20-30K dollars.
Next it has to be dated before 1986.
What this kid had was not an assault rifle but a semi auto rifle. you can get a 30/30 or a 306 in the same type.
it only fires as fast as you can pull the trigger. it is not an assualt rifle.
This is wholesale bullcrap, and you have to know that. Semi-automatic assault rifles are more efficient semi-automatic rifles than a hunting rifle. This equating of semi-auto assault rifles to hunting rifles is bunk.
not really as people smuggle weapons around all the time. this is just bad logic.
No, it's not. There would be less guns, period. Less guns in the hands of law-abiding civilians is also less guns in the hands of criminals, since these guns start out legally.
There are billions of people who wouldn't kill someone with a kitchen knife. Since we have no way of determining who the psychos are with 100% confidence, we should restrict the usage of kitchen knives. Your logic sucks, to be blunt.
again criminals don't care what you ban they will get their hands on it anyway.
ban hand guns the only people going to follow it are law abiding citizens. this is a horrible arguement to make.
you basically take away guns from law abiding people which there are far more of then the criminal element. you then empower the criminal element with more power.
The only way in which this argument might be true is in the immediate aftermath of the banning. If guns aren't being produced for civilian consumption, then there would be less guns (especially as police confiscate illegal firearms). The math is pretty simple.
there are quite a few games that you can walk around and kill innocent people, there are countless movies in which the same happens. If we have our gun rights taken away or limited then what's the next step, ban violent movies or video games?
Alert me when these games and movies start being used as a tool for murder.
And the guy talking about banning kitchen knives makes a good point. Why not ban or severely restrict everything that can be used to kill, here's an idea, anyone that wants to buy a kitchen knife should have to do an FBI background check like any gun buyer has to. This goes for cars, bows, baseball bats, razor blades, anything and everything that can be used as a weapon or be used to inflict bodily harm on another
These items all have many legitimate purposes that do not involve killing a living thing.
I didn't say that the military didn't use it, I said it's purpose is not for killing.
Last time i checked the military killed people.
You know I'm not sure how to respond to this. It's like you don't want to understand that his rampage included more than just killing children.
His little crime spree was all encompassed by these actions and until he started his crime spree he was a law abiding citizen, with no criminal record. Your argument just sounds incredibly stupid to me and I don't see how you can think that it's valid.
Actually it is quite valid. The kid was mentally unstable. His mother even eluded to this.
He stole his mothers guns (which were not secured properly for some reason).
He then killed his mother and went on a mental rampage.
He was dead set on doing what he did and no amount of law would have stopped him from doing it.
he would have simply got a gun from somewhere else and people in his class described him as smart. he would have devised another way to do it.
Your arguement of banning guns would have prevented this is just faulty logic. whether he had a gun or not he would have attempted the same thing.
He would have obtained what he needed to obtain to complete his objective.
no what is stupid is thinking banning guns is going to prevent people who have mental break downs and go on killing spree's from doing so.
they will just find another way to do it.
whether it be with a car or a bomb or some kind of chemical agent etc ...
mentally ill people will find a way to accomplish what they want to do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, so this is another dodge of the question
Sorry no dodge at all. you just don't like the answer because it is the truth.
If what you say is true, why don't we see grenades, RPGs, and full-auto machine guns used in these mass murders?
Really? i know people with these types of weapons. they are highly regulated and almost impossible to pick up unless you have the cash.
also for every device you own you have to have an ATF license for each device cost is about 2-5k a piece.
i am sure there are some really hard core gang groups out there that have them and some of these militia type groups but regular people no.
This is wholesale bullcrap, and you have to know that. Semi-automatic assault rifles are more efficient semi-automatic rifles than a hunting rifle. This equating of semi-auto assault rifles to hunting rifles is bunk.
Sorry this is not bunk. A semi-auto gun is not an assault rifle. if you can't understand this then you are just being ignorant. i gave you the definition of being an assault rifle. ignoring it will not change the real definition.
the only difference between a AR 15 round and a 30/30 is the shape of the bullet and size. other than that there is no difference.
both would be semi-auto.
No, it's not. There would be less guns, period. Less guns in the hands of law-abiding civilians is also less guns in the hands of criminals, since these guns start out legally.
I am sorry but you can believe this all you want it will not change reality.
Less guns in the hands of law abiding citizens means more power to the criminal elements that will keep their guns.
Reeeeeeeaching...The internet is not a tool designed to kill things, there's really no arguing this. You're just making yourself look silly.
ARPANET was designed for military research and development so that people could connect together over long distances. yes ARPANET was designed to help build better military equipment including guns and bombs.
To everyone saying that revolvers are ok because theyre slow to reload then do some research, they make these handy things for em called speed loaders and theyre pretty easy to use as well, and revolvers will more reliably kill as well, they don't really malfunction to easy. In my opinion it's kind of absurd to argue that some weapons don't need to be sold to the public (excluding full-autos, explosives, silencers, etc) because any gun can kill
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
I didn't say that the military didn't use it, I said it's purpose is not for killing.
Last time i checked the military killed people.
Hahahahahaha! Yes, the multiple-steps-of-separation-guilt-by-association-game! By your particularly poor logic, socks are tools of murder since the military uses socks and the military kills people.
In my opinion it's kind of absurd to argue that some weapons don't need to be sold to the public (excluding full-autos, explosives, silencers, etc) because any gun can kill
Why can't we own full-auto guns, grenades, RPGs, silencers, etc.?
I didn't say violent games and movies kill people, but we are surrounded by violence all the time, things like school shootings and the like were pretty much unheard of say, 50 years ago, obviously there's no way to know for sure butwould it be safe to say that all the violence we are subject to through movies, games, news, and the Internet my be a problem?
I just want to begin by saying how nice it is to see a thread on guns that isn't completely biased in either direction. I just want to share my thoughts on the parts that jumped out at me.
1. If we can limit guns, and the type of guns we can reduce the odds that they get into the wrong hands.
This seems reasonable, but the problem here is how do you define the "wrong hands"? The easy answer is the violent criminal, or the mentally ill person. In a lot of cases though the shooter isn't the one with the "wrong hands" until after they've already taken lives.
We also have to accept that limiting the number of guns available won't necessarily mean less of them will end up in the "wrong hands". Say, for the sake of discussion, that 50% of guns are in the "wrong hands" and the other 50% are in the hands of law abiding citizens.
If we reduce the number of guns available there's nothing to suggest that that ratio would remain the same. It might, or it might tilt to one side's favor and have 80% in the wrong hands and 20% in the right, or vice versa.
And how would we limit guns? The inherit problem with gun control laws is that the people we're trying to keep the guns away from are the ones who are most likely to ignore those laws in the first place.
"but what about people who need to defend themselves"
This is probably the biggest argument against gun control. I agree that this is an aspect to be looked at. Some other countries allow public gun carrying through permits given out to people who work in dangerous environments.(such as taxi cab drivers, or convenience stores in highly dangerous areas)
The other aspect to this is the fact that you really only need a gun to defend off perps that have guns. Other non-lethal measure such as tazer guns(ect) are more than effective on people who are either unarmed, or are armed with knives, broken bottles, ect. Limiting the number of guns will lower this down significantly since most crimes of this sort are not committed by career criminals.
This I have to disagree with completely. You only need a gun if you're threatened with a gun? If you're threatened by a knife, a gun is what, overkill? Is it unfair to the bad guy if he attacks you with a knife or a bat and you have a gun to fight back with?
You're also making the assumption that an attacker with a gun is more of a threat than a man with a knife. In some circumstances you could argue that, but if a full grown man attacked a woman half his size, or an elderly person, it doesn't matter what he attacks them with. He's a lethal threat. There's no point in arguing if one weapon is somehow more lethal than another. The point is that it's lethal, and if you're life is in danger you have every right to defend yourself with whatever force is available to you.
Also, the effectiveness of a weapon, whether lethal or non-lethal, has absolutely nothing to do with what your assailant is armed with, or if they're armed at all. A tazer will do the same thing to a man regardless of what he's armed with, be it an edged or blunt object, their own gun, etc. So the idea that a tazer or pepper spray is somehow "more effective" if they don't have a gun is nonsense.
2. Limit the chances that insane people will get a hold of a gun.
Completely agree here as far as ideas go. The mentally ill person who is a threat to themselves and others shouldn't be given a weapon.
But again, the problem is how can that be feasibly implemented? It's easy to say, "Don't sell guns to crazy people," but not being able to buy one doesn't mean they couldn't get their hands on one. And there isn't anything that could be done to ensure that no mentally ill person ever gets their hands on a firearm ever again.
This situation is more of a problem with the mental health system than gun control though.
3. Limit the chances of youth coming in contact with guns without adult supervision.(in cases of hunting and shoot competitions)
I would add "untrained" youth. There are kids who are taught to respect the power of guns and treat them safely and not as toys, and that's fine. But the kid who doesn't know anything about firearm safety, can't be allowed access to firearms. It kills me to read about some gun owner who was too stupid to keep his gun locked up only to have their child play with it and hurt or kill themselves with it.
This is more of a parenting/personal responsibility issue than a legal one though.
4. Limit the number of "passion" killings.(reducing gun availability lowers the number of murders by passion. Knives are quite effective in this, but guns are the first choice and allow killing from range. Also knifes are generally less than half as effective as guns.
This is a tough one, but this is a reality that you just have to accept if you want to have a society where citizens can own firearms. You can't outlaw emotion, and there will always be crimes of passion. If you want to allow citizens to own firearms, you have to understand that there's the chance that a person could use that firearm to hurt someone else. The vast majority of gun owners don't and never will (a fact some people like to forget), but you can't have total freedom and total security. You just can't say, "OK, you can own guns" and then somehow expect that no gun owner will ever make a bad decision for the rest of eternity.
These help curb murders of passion or murders out of temporary insanity. Currently 3 day waiting periods exist for certain guns. IMO we need to increase the scale and length of these. For example I believe that all firearms should have some waiting period.
This would be active shortly after the legislation passes.
People say that making someone wait 10 days before getting their gun will lower crimes of passion, which may or may not be true. It's possible that someone will be so angry they'll go out and buy a gun, and then while waiting for it calm down and realize they made a mistake.
It's also possible that it won't make a difference at all and they'll just wait and then kill the person anyway. Or steal a gun. Or kill them some other way.
Then you have to consider the self defense aspect. If a woman who got a restraining order against her abusive ex-husband was in fear for her life and wanted a gun to protect herself, but had to wait 10 days, what's she supposed to do for those 10 days? Just hope he doesn't show up?
I didn't say violent games and movies kill people, but we are surrounded by violence all the time, things like school shootings and the like were pretty much unheard of say, 50 years ago, obviously there's no way to know for sure butwould it be safe to say that all the violence we are subject to through movies, games, news, and the Internet my be a problem?
Why do you suppose Japan, which has even more violence in its games and video, has 0.008% of the gun murder rate that the U.S. does?
Why do you suppose Japan, which has even more violence in its games and video, has 0.008% of the gun murder rate that the U.S. does?
You're comparing two drastically different cultures and telling me that the difference in gun crime rates rests solely on legislation? GOOD JOKE.
No, it implies I think that their gun might be used in a gun crime.
My kitchen knife might be used in a crime, should I have it taken away as well? While you're at it you might as well take anything pointy from me, as well as blunt objects like hammers and mallets. Go ahead and take my car too, criminals could use that, too. You could also make a bomb out of my cleaning products, I'll be a good citizen and give you those, too. Anything else?
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
@ mystery45 an AR 15 is a semi auto, a 30/30 is not. a semi automatic weapon reloads itself after a round is fired, a lever action 30/30 has to be manually reloaded with the manipulation of the lever. It's like calling a smith and wesson revolver a glock 19, it's not the same, I'm not trying to be rude or troll I just want things clarified for everyone
On topic though, unless guns are banned out right it wouldn't really do any good because there would still be incidents like mass shootings, more gun legislation doesn't do anything really in my opinion except make politicians look like theyre doing something good for the people, all most really care about is staying in power and making money
You're comparing two drastically different cultures and telling me that the difference in gun crime rates rests solely on legislation? GOOD JOKE.
actually if you look they still have gun crime. it is just really small. guess who does most of it? the gangs in japan. the criminal element that doesn't care about licensing or gun safety.
also i noted a couple of things.
1. it requires a full day class.
2. it requires a range test.
3. It requires a mental examination by a hospital.
then there are ton of other things.
really it defeats his arguement as mentioned by others.
the criminal element doesn't care. neither do people that are planning a mass murder.
@ mystery45 an AR 15 is a semi auto, a 30/30 is not.
My mistake i thought they made a semi-auto one. i know they make semi-auto shotguns.
they do make semi-auto rifles, just not a 30/30
Except put their right to own a gun above the right to life of victims to crimes that could have been avoided by gun control legislation.
It's trickier than that, because it's the right to own a gun vs. the right to life of an unknown number of hypothetical victims (almost certainly zero).
Yes, a homicidal madman will most likely kill and/or injure more people with a gun than without one (assuming he takes a direct approach). But the vast majority of gun owners aren't homicidal madmen. And they do not deserve to be to be treated as if they were. The state has a legitimate interest in licensing gun owners to ensure that they're sane and competent and in tracking their weapons, same as it does for other dangerous implements like automobiles. But it does not have a legitimate interest in banning gun ownership by people it has ensured are sane and competent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In my opinion it's kind of absurd to argue that some weapons don't need to be sold to the public (excluding full-autos, explosives, silencers, etc) because any gun can kill
Why can't we own full-auto guns, grenades, RPGs, silencers, etc.?
Because in my opinion we shouldn't be able to outgun police or the military
How did gun control of the Clinton era affect things? Like the assault weapon bans, did they really lower violent crimes even?
I was just curious if anyone knows
Yeah... with guns and other weapons. Not the internet, because unlike guns, missiles, bombs, grenades, etc. it's purpose is not to kill.
Quote from mystery45 »
Actually it is quite valid. The kid was mentally unstable. His mother even eluded to this.
Whether or not he was mentally unstable isn't what you were arguing.
You were arguing that he wasn't a law abiding citizen when he stole his mother's guns, which therefore meant that gun control laws only take away guns from abiding citizens. To which I argued that stealing his mother's guns was all apart of the same crime spree and before that he was a law abiding citizen.
Here you're trying to change your argument, by saying he was mentally unstable, when that is not what you said.
Quote from mystery45 »
He stole his mothers guns (which were not secured properly for some reason). He then killed his mother and went on a mental rampage.
No, he was on the rampage when he stole the guns and killed his mom.
Quote from mystery45 »
He was dead set on doing what he did and no amount of law would have stopped him from doing it.
he would have simply got a gun from somewhere else and people in his class described him as smart. he would have devised another way to do it.
First of all, if we had gun control laws, his Mother may not have had those guns in the first place. You say that he would have gotten them from somewhere else, where exactly would that be if we had strict gun control laws?
Quote from mystery45 »
Your argument of banning guns would have prevented this is just faulty logic. whether he had a gun or not he would have attempted the same thing.
First, I didn't give an argument to ban guns, secondly even if that was my argument the question you should be asking is even if he did attempt the same thing, how successful would he have been at it?
Quote from mystery45 »
no what is stupid is thinking banning guns is going to prevent people who have mental break downs and go on killing spree's from doing so.
As I said already, the question isn't that they wouldn't try to go on a killing spree. Its how sucessful he would have been at:
1) Acquiring a gun in the first place
2) What type of gun he could have acquired
3) How many people he would have killed if he didn't have a gun and used something else, like a knife.
How did gun control of the Clinton era affect things? Like the assault weapon bans, did they really lower violent crimes even?
I was just curious if anyone knows
Vanishingly few crimes have ever been committed with the firearms the bill calls "assault weapons", and even fewer with actual assault weapons. If you could wave a magic wand and make every AR-15 in America disappear, the effect on the gun crime rate would be all but unnoticeable. Almost all shootings are done with pistols (and done by gang members, not the mentally ill).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
State Gun Accident and Homicide Motor Vehicle Accident and Homicide
Alaska 17 84
Arizona 228 807
Colorado 108 557
Indiana 267 714
Michigan 507 962
Nevada 97 254
Oregon 55 391
Utah 30 256
Virginia 285 826
Washington 118 574
Perhaps we should have car control or car bans.
1) Cars have a purpose that doesn't involve murder, making them different from guns. We've covered that.
2) We do have car control, at least in New Zealand. Don't you have driver's licences in the States?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
You're STILL avoiding the question. Do you, personally, feel that there is a weapon that a civilian shouldn't be able to own? Where is that line, and why do you choose to draw it?
I believe its a case by case determination. If a soldier retires from the service and comes home with his weapon that happens to be an assault rifle that he paid for while in the service, who am I to say he shouldnt have the rifle? He probably has had more training and practice on that weapon then any non-military citizen. Now you have a woman who has a girl friend that gets assaulted and she wants protection, I feel she needs to be educated and shown different weapons of different force to find the correct one for her. Again, this is about education.
So I can not answer your question with a blanket statement that 'X' gun is the line that no one should own. Everyone has different levels of experience and expertise. Just because I can handle a 50 cal pistol, does not mean everyone can.
Not to the extent that they are today, not if illegal guns were confiscated when found.
Chicago tried this because of the gun violence they had. (up till recently Chicago has had the strictest gun control laws on the books, yet had the highest gun related deaths, so much for gun control) They were melting down guns confiscated or found in busts. They also had a trade in program where they gave money for guns, no questions asked. They melted down hundreds of thousands of guns, and it didnt put a dent in the gun traffic in the area.
The shooter was 20, not a child.
He was not old enough to legally own or use a gun in Conn. If he has the mental issues that have been reported, there is a good possibility he was not as mature as his age.
Quote from marcie69 »
I have no doubt there are millions of gun owners who would never point a gun at anyone. However I also have no doubt there are gun owners who would shoot people at will with no remorse. Since it is virtually impossible to find all of these people the only thing that can be done is to limit access to the killing tool.
People kill people not guns. But if you can't find all the potential killers then the only thing to do is to ban the tool.
You dont punish millions for the actions of a few. Sorry, I will never agree with you about that.
Quote from Izuki »
1) Cars have a purpose that doesn't involve murder, making them different from guns. We've covered that.
2) We do have car control, at least in New Zealand. Don't you have driver's licences in the States?
1) Not all guns are created for murder. They are created for hunting and sport also.
2) Most states you need to have a license or at least a card showing you have gone through class in how to handle the guns you have legally owned.
I just got my conceal carry permit and had to attend 4 weeks of classes and 2 weekends of range to show I had proper knowledge of the gun I wanted to carry.
But we are talking about people who are going about things legally, criminals dont follow rules.
On a side note, this thread is weird, people I normally argue with are siding with me. Feels strange.
Maybe your grandfather should get out of the instruments of death industry.
Troll infraction.
Can you kill someone with a video game?
Though I'll put it in a small font.
Please stop hijacking my reply box.
It's amusing that you can't use English properly: maybe you should say something relevant instead of just typing statements that make you feel smart.
Sure can, but I don't think that was his point.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Care to explain how you would kill somebody with the magnetic field on a computer hard drive that represents the software that is a video game?
Though I'll put it in a small font.
Please stop hijacking my reply box.
Actually it is true. I didn't say that the military didn't use it, I said it's purpose is not for killing.
You know I'm not sure how to respond to this. It's like you don't want to understand that his rampage included more than just killing children.
His little crime spree was encompassed by these actions and until he started his crime spree he was a law abiding citizen, with no criminal record. Your argument just sounds incredibly stupid to me and I don't see how you can think that it's valid.
Two things; first this is a slippery slope argument and second this point has already been covered in this thread.
I'm poking fun at you for not providing an argument: why is my analogy invalid?
Why are you distracting yourself with irrelevant details? This kind of side argument only functions as a distraction. Plus, it's really stupid.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Okay, so this is another dodge of the question, but I'll move on since it appears the pro-gun crowd isn't willing to answer a perfectly good question.
If what you say is true, why don't we see grenades, RPGs, and full-auto machine guns used in these mass murders?
Not as easy as grabbing a gun.
This is wholesale bullcrap, and you have to know that. Semi-automatic assault rifles are more efficient semi-automatic rifles than a hunting rifle. This equating of semi-auto assault rifles to hunting rifles is bunk.
No, it's not. There would be less guns, period. Less guns in the hands of law-abiding civilians is also less guns in the hands of criminals, since these guns start out legally.
Why don't we see mass-knifings, do you think?
The only way in which this argument might be true is in the immediate aftermath of the banning. If guns aren't being produced for civilian consumption, then there would be less guns (especially as police confiscate illegal firearms). The math is pretty simple.
Alert me when these games and movies start being used as a tool for murder.
These items all have many legitimate purposes that do not involve killing a living thing.
Reeeeeeeaching...The internet is not a tool designed to kill things, there's really no arguing this. You're just making yourself look silly.
Go on...
Last time i checked the military killed people.
Actually it is quite valid. The kid was mentally unstable. His mother even eluded to this.
He stole his mothers guns (which were not secured properly for some reason).
He then killed his mother and went on a mental rampage.
He was dead set on doing what he did and no amount of law would have stopped him from doing it.
he would have simply got a gun from somewhere else and people in his class described him as smart. he would have devised another way to do it.
Your arguement of banning guns would have prevented this is just faulty logic. whether he had a gun or not he would have attempted the same thing.
He would have obtained what he needed to obtain to complete his objective.
no what is stupid is thinking banning guns is going to prevent people who have mental break downs and go on killing spree's from doing so.
they will just find another way to do it.
whether it be with a car or a bomb or some kind of chemical agent etc ...
mentally ill people will find a way to accomplish what they want to do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry no dodge at all. you just don't like the answer because it is the truth.
Really? i know people with these types of weapons. they are highly regulated and almost impossible to pick up unless you have the cash.
also for every device you own you have to have an ATF license for each device cost is about 2-5k a piece.
i am sure there are some really hard core gang groups out there that have them and some of these militia type groups but regular people no.
Sorry this is not bunk. A semi-auto gun is not an assault rifle. if you can't understand this then you are just being ignorant. i gave you the definition of being an assault rifle. ignoring it will not change the real definition.
the only difference between a AR 15 round and a 30/30 is the shape of the bullet and size. other than that there is no difference.
both would be semi-auto.
I am sorry but you can believe this all you want it will not change reality.
Less guns in the hands of law abiding citizens means more power to the criminal elements that will keep their guns.
ARPANET was designed for military research and development so that people could connect together over long distances. yes ARPANET was designed to help build better military equipment including guns and bombs.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=9135796#post9135796
Buy thread
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=473224
Conveniently, this wasn't part of your reasoning.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Hahahahahaha! Yes, the multiple-steps-of-separation-guilt-by-association-game! By your particularly poor logic, socks are tools of murder since the military uses socks and the military kills people.
Why do you think he chose guns? Wouldn't grenades, or a bomb, or something of that nature have been even more deadly?
You simply do not know this. It's totally possible he wouldn't have.
Why make it easier for them?
Why can't we own full-auto guns, grenades, RPGs, silencers, etc.?
Perhaps you could answer the question? I know that seems strange to ask, but...
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=9135796#post9135796
Buy thread
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=473224
If you disarm a citizen for the purpose of preventing gun crimes, this implies that you think that citizen might commit gun crimes.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This seems reasonable, but the problem here is how do you define the "wrong hands"? The easy answer is the violent criminal, or the mentally ill person. In a lot of cases though the shooter isn't the one with the "wrong hands" until after they've already taken lives.
We also have to accept that limiting the number of guns available won't necessarily mean less of them will end up in the "wrong hands". Say, for the sake of discussion, that 50% of guns are in the "wrong hands" and the other 50% are in the hands of law abiding citizens.
If we reduce the number of guns available there's nothing to suggest that that ratio would remain the same. It might, or it might tilt to one side's favor and have 80% in the wrong hands and 20% in the right, or vice versa.
And how would we limit guns? The inherit problem with gun control laws is that the people we're trying to keep the guns away from are the ones who are most likely to ignore those laws in the first place.
This I have to disagree with completely. You only need a gun if you're threatened with a gun? If you're threatened by a knife, a gun is what, overkill? Is it unfair to the bad guy if he attacks you with a knife or a bat and you have a gun to fight back with?
You're also making the assumption that an attacker with a gun is more of a threat than a man with a knife. In some circumstances you could argue that, but if a full grown man attacked a woman half his size, or an elderly person, it doesn't matter what he attacks them with. He's a lethal threat. There's no point in arguing if one weapon is somehow more lethal than another. The point is that it's lethal, and if you're life is in danger you have every right to defend yourself with whatever force is available to you.
Also, the effectiveness of a weapon, whether lethal or non-lethal, has absolutely nothing to do with what your assailant is armed with, or if they're armed at all. A tazer will do the same thing to a man regardless of what he's armed with, be it an edged or blunt object, their own gun, etc. So the idea that a tazer or pepper spray is somehow "more effective" if they don't have a gun is nonsense.
Just wondering what exactly you mean by "most dangerous guns". Rifles? Full auto, semi auto firearms?
Completely agree here as far as ideas go. The mentally ill person who is a threat to themselves and others shouldn't be given a weapon.
But again, the problem is how can that be feasibly implemented? It's easy to say, "Don't sell guns to crazy people," but not being able to buy one doesn't mean they couldn't get their hands on one. And there isn't anything that could be done to ensure that no mentally ill person ever gets their hands on a firearm ever again.
This situation is more of a problem with the mental health system than gun control though.
I would add "untrained" youth. There are kids who are taught to respect the power of guns and treat them safely and not as toys, and that's fine. But the kid who doesn't know anything about firearm safety, can't be allowed access to firearms. It kills me to read about some gun owner who was too stupid to keep his gun locked up only to have their child play with it and hurt or kill themselves with it.
This is more of a parenting/personal responsibility issue than a legal one though.
This is a tough one, but this is a reality that you just have to accept if you want to have a society where citizens can own firearms. You can't outlaw emotion, and there will always be crimes of passion. If you want to allow citizens to own firearms, you have to understand that there's the chance that a person could use that firearm to hurt someone else. The vast majority of gun owners don't and never will (a fact some people like to forget), but you can't have total freedom and total security. You just can't say, "OK, you can own guns" and then somehow expect that no gun owner will ever make a bad decision for the rest of eternity.
People say that making someone wait 10 days before getting their gun will lower crimes of passion, which may or may not be true. It's possible that someone will be so angry they'll go out and buy a gun, and then while waiting for it calm down and realize they made a mistake.
It's also possible that it won't make a difference at all and they'll just wait and then kill the person anyway. Or steal a gun. Or kill them some other way.
Then you have to consider the self defense aspect. If a woman who got a restraining order against her abusive ex-husband was in fear for her life and wanted a gun to protect herself, but had to wait 10 days, what's she supposed to do for those 10 days? Just hope he doesn't show up?
Why do you suppose Japan, which has even more violence in its games and video, has 0.008% of the gun murder rate that the U.S. does?
No, it implies I think that their gun might be used in a gun crime.
Alaska 17 84
Arizona 228 807
Colorado 108 557
Indiana 267 714
Michigan 507 962
Nevada 97 254
Oregon 55 391
Utah 30 256
Virginia 285 826
Washington 118 574
Perhaps we should have car control or car bans.
...among other things.
Nuclear warheads are not a constitutional right.
You're comparing two drastically different cultures and telling me that the difference in gun crime rates rests solely on legislation? GOOD JOKE.
My kitchen knife might be used in a crime, should I have it taken away as well? While you're at it you might as well take anything pointy from me, as well as blunt objects like hammers and mallets. Go ahead and take my car too, criminals could use that, too. You could also make a bomb out of my cleaning products, I'll be a good citizen and give you those, too. Anything else?
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
On topic though, unless guns are banned out right it wouldn't really do any good because there would still be incidents like mass shootings, more gun legislation doesn't do anything really in my opinion except make politicians look like theyre doing something good for the people, all most really care about is staying in power and making money
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=9135796#post9135796
Buy thread
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=473224
actually if you look they still have gun crime. it is just really small. guess who does most of it? the gangs in japan. the criminal element that doesn't care about licensing or gun safety.
also i noted a couple of things.
1. it requires a full day class.
2. it requires a range test.
3. It requires a mental examination by a hospital.
then there are ton of other things.
really it defeats his arguement as mentioned by others.
the criminal element doesn't care. neither do people that are planning a mass murder.
My mistake i thought they made a semi-auto one. i know they make semi-auto shotguns.
they do make semi-auto rifles, just not a 30/30
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
It's trickier than that, because it's the right to own a gun vs. the right to life of an unknown number of hypothetical victims (almost certainly zero).
Yes, a homicidal madman will most likely kill and/or injure more people with a gun than without one (assuming he takes a direct approach). But the vast majority of gun owners aren't homicidal madmen. And they do not deserve to be to be treated as if they were. The state has a legitimate interest in licensing gun owners to ensure that they're sane and competent and in tracking their weapons, same as it does for other dangerous implements like automobiles. But it does not have a legitimate interest in banning gun ownership by people it has ensured are sane and competent.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Because in my opinion we shouldn't be able to outgun police or the military
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=9135796#post9135796
Buy thread
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=473224
I was just curious if anyone knows
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=9135796#post9135796
Buy thread
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=473224
Yeah... with guns and other weapons. Not the internet, because unlike guns, missiles, bombs, grenades, etc. it's purpose is not to kill.
Whether or not he was mentally unstable isn't what you were arguing.
You were arguing that he wasn't a law abiding citizen when he stole his mother's guns, which therefore meant that gun control laws only take away guns from abiding citizens. To which I argued that stealing his mother's guns was all apart of the same crime spree and before that he was a law abiding citizen.
Here you're trying to change your argument, by saying he was mentally unstable, when that is not what you said.
No, he was on the rampage when he stole the guns and killed his mom.
First of all, if we had gun control laws, his Mother may not have had those guns in the first place. You say that he would have gotten them from somewhere else, where exactly would that be if we had strict gun control laws?
First, I didn't give an argument to ban guns, secondly even if that was my argument the question you should be asking is even if he did attempt the same thing, how successful would he have been at it?
As I said already, the question isn't that they wouldn't try to go on a killing spree. Its how sucessful he would have been at:
1) Acquiring a gun in the first place
2) What type of gun he could have acquired
3) How many people he would have killed if he didn't have a gun and used something else, like a knife.
Vanishingly few crimes have ever been committed with the firearms the bill calls "assault weapons", and even fewer with actual assault weapons. If you could wave a magic wand and make every AR-15 in America disappear, the effect on the gun crime rate would be all but unnoticeable. Almost all shootings are done with pistols (and done by gang members, not the mentally ill).
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
2) We do have car control, at least in New Zealand. Don't you have driver's licences in the States?
Art is life itself.
I believe its a case by case determination. If a soldier retires from the service and comes home with his weapon that happens to be an assault rifle that he paid for while in the service, who am I to say he shouldnt have the rifle? He probably has had more training and practice on that weapon then any non-military citizen. Now you have a woman who has a girl friend that gets assaulted and she wants protection, I feel she needs to be educated and shown different weapons of different force to find the correct one for her. Again, this is about education.
So I can not answer your question with a blanket statement that 'X' gun is the line that no one should own. Everyone has different levels of experience and expertise. Just because I can handle a 50 cal pistol, does not mean everyone can.
Chicago tried this because of the gun violence they had. (up till recently Chicago has had the strictest gun control laws on the books, yet had the highest gun related deaths, so much for gun control) They were melting down guns confiscated or found in busts. They also had a trade in program where they gave money for guns, no questions asked. They melted down hundreds of thousands of guns, and it didnt put a dent in the gun traffic in the area.
He was not old enough to legally own or use a gun in Conn. If he has the mental issues that have been reported, there is a good possibility he was not as mature as his age.
You dont punish millions for the actions of a few. Sorry, I will never agree with you about that.
1) Not all guns are created for murder. They are created for hunting and sport also.
2) Most states you need to have a license or at least a card showing you have gone through class in how to handle the guns you have legally owned.
I just got my conceal carry permit and had to attend 4 weeks of classes and 2 weekends of range to show I had proper knowledge of the gun I wanted to carry.
But we are talking about people who are going about things legally, criminals dont follow rules.
On a side note, this thread is weird, people I normally argue with are siding with me. Feels strange.