Pages: 1 2

 

Poll

Does the Right To Bear Arms equal the Right to go on a Shooting Spree?

Yes - Having a gun means everyone must die4%4% - 4
Yes - It increases violence and this is the result26%26% - 23
No - It decreases violence, it's an aberration5%5% - 5
No - Nutjobs will find their own way47%47% - 41
WTF - Chance of getting shot is miniscule10%10% - 9
Watch the news for nutjobs...I told you so!4%4% - 4
Total: 86
2007-12-20 23:47:33
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6979|Texas - Bigger than France
Simple question really based on other arguments:

Corresponding to the questions above.  Please note that all of these answers have sources with support and reflute these claims.

1) Yes - Having a gun means everyone must die: You believe the second amendment is the ONLY reason shooting sprees happen.  Societal pressures are independent.

2) Yes - It increases violence and this is the result: You believe legal gun ownership contributes to increasing violence within a society.  Therefore, the chance of shooting spree is directly coorelated with the crime rate (both increase), or the shooting spree rate has spiked above the crime rate just because the society has become more violent.  In other words, having Guns increases the violence within society.  (Ps. I'm not editing this again)

3) No - It decreases violence, it's an aberration:  You believe legal gun ownership acts as a deterrent.  The sprees are actually random and media driven sensationalism.

4) No - Nutjobs will find their own way:  You believe that shooting sprees aren't unique.  Specifically since shooting sprees are usually nutjobs, these people really aren't too concerned about anything but going out in a blaze of glory.  They'll figure it out on their own terms.

5) WTF - Chance of getting shot is miniscule: This topic is stupid.  Chances are I will never be shot, much less in a shooting spree.  Shooting sprees are merely train wrecks, and we all got to look.

6) Watch the news for nutjobs...I told you so!:  You can't wait for the next tragedy so can profit from it by pushing your agenda.  And you won't hesitate to remind people of the incident because it's always a relevant point in the gun control debate.

Last edited by Pug (2007-12-21 00:11:54)

2007-12-20 23:53:39
Major.League.Infidel
Make Love and War
+303|6915|Communist Republic of CA, USA
#4 For me, but with a touch of #3 thrown in.  I believe that most shooting sprees are simply media hype, and that it is entirely possible to go on a Katana Spree, or a Pick Axe Spree, or an anything Spree.  Where there's a will, there's a way.  Yes, a gun would make it a bit easier because you can tip the power, but if another rational person has a gun, he can tip the power too. 
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt
2007-12-20 23:54:20
SharkyMcshark
I'll take two
+132|7222|Perth, Western Australia
But you seem to have missed

x) yes - The proliferation of guns, amongst other factors, can and has led to a disproportionately high level of gun homocide/suicide/usage in crimes in America.

But I voted for 2 seeing as it was the closest to what I wrote above.
2007-12-20 23:56:55
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6979|Texas - Bigger than France

SharkyMcshark wrote:

But you seem to have missed

x) yes - The proliferation of guns, amongst other factors, can and has led to a disproportionately high level of gun homocide/suicide/usage in crimes in America.

But I voted for 2 seeing as it was the closest to what I wrote above.
No, that's number 2 exactly.
2007-12-20 23:58:03
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6979|Texas - Bigger than France

Major.League.Infidel wrote:

#4 For me, but with a touch of #3 thrown in.  I believe that most shooting sprees are simply media hype, and that it is entirely possible to go on a Katana Spree, or a Pick Axe Spree, or an anything Spree.  Where there's a will, there's a way.  Yes, a gun would make it a bit easier because you can tip the power, but if another rational person has a gun, he can tip the power too. 
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt
#4 doesn't mean they won't find an illegal gun and blaze away
2007-12-20 23:59:22
Major.League.Infidel
Make Love and War
+303|6915|Communist Republic of CA, USA

SharkyMcshark wrote:

But you seem to have missed

x) yes - The proliferation of guns, amongst other factors, can and has led to a disproportionately high level of gun homocide/suicide/usage in crimes in America.

But I voted for 2 seeing as it was the closest to what I wrote above.
Does Society then move to take away all weapons?  And what about the use of Firearms in Recreation?  Do we take away baseball bats, because they can be used as a Blunt Instrument?  And Kitchen Knives?  How many cheating wives/husbands know their cruel bite?  And even if guns were outlawed, the outlaws would still get them.  Right here in California, where all Assault Weapons are banned, I know 4 different people locally that I could acquire a Fully Automatic Ak-47 from, and I know another dozen or so that own them.  But those guns are illegal.
2007-12-21 00:00:57
Major.League.Infidel
Make Love and War
+303|6915|Communist Republic of CA, USA

Pug wrote:

Major.League.Infidel wrote:

#4 For me, but with a touch of #3 thrown in.  I believe that most shooting sprees are simply media hype, and that it is entirely possible to go on a Katana Spree, or a Pick Axe Spree, or an anything Spree.  Where there's a will, there's a way.  Yes, a gun would make it a bit easier because you can tip the power, but if another rational person has a gun, he can tip the power too. 
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt
#4 doesn't mean they won't find an illegal gun and blaze away
That's exactly what I meant by my Latin Quote Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt translates to "When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults "

Keep Guns in our hands.

Last edited by Major.League.Infidel (2007-12-21 00:01:18)

2007-12-21 00:01:18
SharkyMcshark
I'll take two
+132|7222|Perth, Western Australia

Pug wrote:

SharkyMcshark wrote:

But you seem to have missed

x) yes - The proliferation of guns, amongst other factors, can and has led to a disproportionately high level of gun homocide/suicide/usage in crimes in America.

But I voted for 2 seeing as it was the closest to what I wrote above.
No, that's number 2 exactly.
Well not really. #2 implies that guns directly -> increased gun violence, which every person with more than 3 brain cells knows isn't the gun. #2 through it's wording lays the blame directly on guns, whereas the one that I presented said that guns and outside factors contribute.

But I suppose #2 is closest to what I'm trying to say...
2007-12-21 00:02:48
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6979|Texas - Bigger than France

SharkyMcshark wrote:

Pug wrote:

SharkyMcshark wrote:

But you seem to have missed

x) yes - The proliferation of guns, amongst other factors, can and has led to a disproportionately high level of gun homocide/suicide/usage in crimes in America.

But I voted for 2 seeing as it was the closest to what I wrote above.
No, that's number 2 exactly.
Well not really. #2 implies that guns directly -> increased gun violence, which every person with more than 3 brain cells knows isn't the gun. #2 through it's wording lays the blame directly on guns, whereas the one that I presented said that guns and outside factors contribute.

But I suppose #2 is closest to what I'm trying to say...
reworded, 4 clarification as that's what i meant
2007-12-21 02:31:52
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina
I will say what I said in the other post.

sergeriver wrote:

Ok, after reading what you guys wrote here I came to several conclusions:

1-Most people in the US are not prepared to live without guns.

2-They praise their Right to Bear Arms as much as their Freedom of Speech or their Right to Vote.  Is this wrong?  No.  It's the way it is.  Period.

3-When they explained why they needed guns some of the them said they prefer their government being afraid of them, rather than them being afraid of their government.  A vast majority said they needed guns for self-protection or self-defence.  While I find the first part, the government part,  a bit naive and ridiculous, after reading your cases I totally understood the second part, the self-protection, or self-defence.  It seems that many people live in places where the police takes too long to respond and your only choice is to defend yourselves from a burglar or a thief entering your house.

4-I think the most appropriate thing to do in the case of the US is what the Congress did.  You can't ban guns in the US, at least right now.  But you can improve the controls.  What does this mean?  You need to be sure that the guy who is buying a firearm hasn't a mental disorder, or check his police record.  That's all.  I know this is supposed to be happening for a long time, but something must be wrong with the controls if the Congress had to pass this new law.  And then of course, the police needs to ensure that laws are respected, like not letting an asshole to carry a gun into a University.

5-So, when I asked about the 2nd Amendment I wasn't trying to take your rights away, I was trying to understand them, big difference.  Now, that you have explained your needs and motivations, I must concede that in some cases there's a need for a gun in the US.  This is a cultural issue and that's how your society evolved, and you can't change 240 years in one day.  And for the record I love guns.  I just don't own one.
2007-12-21 03:59:34
elstonieo
Oil 4 Euros not $$$
+20|6775|EsSeX
Everyone is a potential criminal/nutjob
2007-12-21 04:06:08
PureFodder
Member
+225|6722
If guns actually cause people to become more violent is not totaly clear. What is clear is that the more available guns are in society, the more likely that when someone goes a bit nuts for whatever reason, they'll have access to a gun.
2007-12-21 04:18:50
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7088|USA

SharkyMcshark wrote:

But you seem to have missed

x) yes - The proliferation of guns, amongst other factors, can and has led to a disproportionately high level of gun homocide/suicide/usage in crimes in America.

But I voted for 2 seeing as it was the closest to what I wrote above.
really? please show some facts that back your statement. Please show where violent crime has gone up amoung citizens with no violent criminal records previously, due to gun ownership.
2007-12-21 04:26:58
PureFodder
Member
+225|6722

lowing wrote:

SharkyMcshark wrote:

But you seem to have missed

x) yes - The proliferation of guns, amongst other factors, can and has led to a disproportionately high level of gun homocide/suicide/usage in crimes in America.

But I voted for 2 seeing as it was the closest to what I wrote above.
really? please show some facts that back your statement. Please show where violent crime has gone up amoung citizens with no violent criminal records previously, due to gun ownership.
Most school shootings in the US were done by citizens with no criminal record and access to a gun (not necessarily their own gun). If the guns had nothing to do with it then knife, hammer, bat, axe etc. killing sprees would be far more common than gun killing sprees as these weapons are typically more available.
2007-12-21 04:37:47
Burwhale
Save the BlobFish!
+136|6659|Brisneyland
Lowing, I tried a google search for what you said as it was a good point. Found this -  http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html .

Key bit is-

ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.
    The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.
    The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths. It was published Thursday in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
    The CDC would not speculate why the death rates varied, but other researchers said easy access to guns and society's acceptance of violence are part of the problem in the United States.
    ``If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often,'' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. ``This has to be treated as a public health emergency.''


Of course this doesnt fit the "Violent Crime" criteria you mention in your post, my search ( although brief) was for Gun deaths in US. I looked a tthe first one on the list, however the other there were thousands of other entries on that search. Research in this article is for 1994 so is a bit dated. I doubt it would have changed much though.
2007-12-21 05:01:19
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7088|USA

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

Lowing, I tried a google search for what you said as it was a good point. Found this -  http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html .

Key bit is-

ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.
    The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.
    The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths. It was published Thursday in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
    The CDC would not speculate why the death rates varied, but other researchers said easy access to guns and society's acceptance of violence are part of the problem in the United States.
    ``If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often,'' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. ``This has to be treated as a public health emergency.''


Of course this doesnt fit the "Violent Crime" criteria you mention in your post, my search ( although brief) was for Gun deaths in US. I looked a tthe first one on the list, however the other there were thousands of other entries on that search. Research in this article is for 1994 so is a bit dated. I doubt it would have changed much though.
Thanks for responding, here is the thing though, How many of these gun related deaths were committed by people who was already forbidden to own a gun? How many of these gun related deaths are gang related or drug related? How many of these gun related deaths accounted for home owners protecting their homes in self defense? How many of these gun related deaths were perpetrated by people who are in our country illegally in the first place?  Compare all of this with how many of these gun related deaths were committed by people who were previously law abiding citizens.

I understand the apples and apples comparison of per capita, but personally all of the gang bangers and crackheads gunning down one anther is almost entertaining. the more of each other they gun down the less law abiding citizens have to deal with them. Kinda like smokers and drug users. Inhale that smoke deep and hold it in your lungs, make sure you stick that needle good and deep in a big fat vein the sooner you disappear the sooner I can breathe in a restaurant, and stop paying for your rehabs. So much for my sensitivity training......... sighhhhhhhhh
2007-12-21 05:20:04
SharkyMcshark
I'll take two
+132|7222|Perth, Western Australia

lowing wrote:

SharkyMcshark wrote:

But you seem to have missed

x) yes - The proliferation of guns, amongst other factors, can and has led to a disproportionately high level of gun homocide/suicide/usage in crimes in America.

But I voted for 2 seeing as it was the closest to what I wrote above.
really? please show some facts that back your statement. Please show where violent crime has gone up amoung citizens with no violent criminal records previously, due to gun ownership.
But that's not what the issue is about. It isn't about completely rational sane people going on shooting sprees. It's about the saturation of gun ownership (among the aforementioned completely sane people) contributing to the level of gun crime.

                  Homicide     Suicide     Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001)             3.98    5.92   0.36
Italy (1997)               0.81     1.1     0.07
Switzerland (1998)   0.50   5.8     0.10
Canada (2002)           0.4     2.0     0.04
Finland (2003)      0.35     4.45     0.10
Australia (2001)     0.24     1.34     0.10
France (2001)             0.21     3.4     0.49
England/Wales (2002)  0.15   0.2     0.03
Scotland (2002)     0.06     0.2     0.02
Japan (2002)              0.02     0.04     0


Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic

OK so these figures aren't to do with crime rates, but they show that the level of gun violence in America is disproportionately larger than that in the rest of the world compared to other first world nations. The point I was making isn't about normal citizens going wacko, but  rather societal factors combined with the large amount of gun ownership forcing people over the edge.

Now here's the point that I've been trying to make that people seem to find very hard to understand. Of course the vast majority of law abiding citizens who buy guns won't snap and go postal. Just owning a gun or seventeen doesn't make you wacko. But the fact that there is such a saturation of firearms undoubtedly makes it easier for your local nutjob/drug dealer to get his/her hands on one. Thats the entire point I've been trying to make. The average law abiding citizen won't go and kill people just because they own guns, but the large volume of legal gun ownership contributes to the ease in which a wacko can get their hands on an 'illegal' (stolen/fell off the back of a truck/whatever) gun.


PureFodder wrote:

Most school shootings in the US were done by citizens with no criminal record and access to a gun (not necessarily their own gun). If the guns had nothing to do with it then knife, hammer, bat, axe etc. killing sprees would be far more common than gun killing sprees as these weapons are typically more available.
"Today in Nebraska a disgruntled student walked onto campus and blugeoned 17 students to death, and then turned the bat on himself" ?
2007-12-21 05:24:25
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6987|CH/BR - in UK

Well, to be honest, I found this hard to answer. I put number two - but in my opinion it's not the right to owning a gun that makes it so dangerous, but it's the fact that there is very little to no control. If these insane fuckers had background checks on them, they'd never go killing people in masses. I wouldn't trust myself with a gun because I have extreme mood swings. Thus - do not give me a gun! It's that simple!
Don't let unbalanced people own killing machines!

-konfusion
2007-12-21 05:24:37
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7088|USA

SharkyMcshark wrote:

lowing wrote:

SharkyMcshark wrote:

But you seem to have missed

x) yes - The proliferation of guns, amongst other factors, can and has led to a disproportionately high level of gun homocide/suicide/usage in crimes in America.

But I voted for 2 seeing as it was the closest to what I wrote above.
really? please show some facts that back your statement. Please show where violent crime has gone up amoung citizens with no violent criminal records previously, due to gun ownership.
But that's not what the issue is about. It isn't about completely rational sane people going on shooting sprees. It's about the saturation of gun ownership (among the aforementioned completely sane people) contributing to the level of gun crime.

                  Homicide     Suicide     Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001)             3.98    5.92   0.36
Italy (1997)               0.81     1.1     0.07
Switzerland (1998)   0.50   5.8     0.10
Canada (2002)           0.4     2.0     0.04
Finland (2003)      0.35     4.45     0.10
Australia (2001)     0.24     1.34     0.10
France (2001)             0.21     3.4     0.49
England/Wales (2002)  0.15   0.2     0.03
Scotland (2002)     0.06     0.2     0.02
Japan (2002)              0.02     0.04     0


Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic

OK so these figures aren't to do with crime rates, but they show that the level of gun violence in America is disproportionately larger than that in the rest of the world compared to other first world nations. The point I was making isn't about normal citizens going wacko, but  rather societal factors combined with the large amount of gun ownership forcing people over the edge.

Now here's the point that I've been trying to make that people seem to find very hard to understand. Of course the vast majority of law abiding citizens who buy guns won't snap and go postal. Just owning a gun or seventeen doesn't make you wacko. But the fact that there is such a saturation of firearms undoubtedly makes it easier for your local nutjob/drug dealer to get his/her hands on one. Thats the entire point I've been trying to make. The average law abiding citizen won't go and kill people just because they own guns, but the large volume of legal gun ownership contributes to the ease in which a wacko can get their hands on an 'illegal' (stolen/fell off the back of a truck/whatever) gun.


PureFodder wrote:

Most school shootings in the US were done by citizens with no criminal record and access to a gun (not necessarily their own gun). If the guns had nothing to do with it then knife, hammer, bat, axe etc. killing sprees would be far more common than gun killing sprees as these weapons are typically more available.
"Today in Nebraska a disgruntled student walked onto campus and blugeoned 17 students to death, and then turned the bat on himself" ?
...........and the point I have been trying to make is this, making guns illegal will not keep criminals from owning them, JUST LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.......No thanks
2007-12-21 05:30:55
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6987|CH/BR - in UK

lowing wrote:

...........and the point I have been trying to make is this, making guns illegal will not keep criminals from owning them, JUST LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.......No thanks
But controlling these things would certainly help. Right now any lunatic can get a gun and shoot himself and others...

-konfusion
2007-12-21 05:34:35
SharkyMcshark
I'll take two
+132|7222|Perth, Western Australia

lowing wrote:

SharkyMcshark wrote:

lowing wrote:


really? please show some facts that back your statement. Please show where violent crime has gone up amoung citizens with no violent criminal records previously, due to gun ownership.
But that's not what the issue is about. It isn't about completely rational sane people going on shooting sprees. It's about the saturation of gun ownership (among the aforementioned completely sane people) contributing to the level of gun crime.

                  Homicide     Suicide     Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001)             3.98    5.92   0.36
Italy (1997)               0.81     1.1     0.07
Switzerland (1998)   0.50   5.8     0.10
Canada (2002)           0.4     2.0     0.04
Finland (2003)      0.35     4.45     0.10
Australia (2001)     0.24     1.34     0.10
France (2001)             0.21     3.4     0.49
England/Wales (2002)  0.15   0.2     0.03
Scotland (2002)     0.06     0.2     0.02
Japan (2002)              0.02     0.04     0


Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic

OK so these figures aren't to do with crime rates, but they show that the level of gun violence in America is disproportionately larger than that in the rest of the world compared to other first world nations. The point I was making isn't about normal citizens going wacko, but  rather societal factors combined with the large amount of gun ownership forcing people over the edge.

Now here's the point that I've been trying to make that people seem to find very hard to understand. Of course the vast majority of law abiding citizens who buy guns won't snap and go postal. Just owning a gun or seventeen doesn't make you wacko. But the fact that there is such a saturation of firearms undoubtedly makes it easier for your local nutjob/drug dealer to get his/her hands on one. Thats the entire point I've been trying to make. The average law abiding citizen won't go and kill people just because they own guns, but the large volume of legal gun ownership contributes to the ease in which a wacko can get their hands on an 'illegal' (stolen/fell off the back of a truck/whatever) gun.


PureFodder wrote:

Most school shootings in the US were done by citizens with no criminal record and access to a gun (not necessarily their own gun). If the guns had nothing to do with it then knife, hammer, bat, axe etc. killing sprees would be far more common than gun killing sprees as these weapons are typically more available.
"Today in Nebraska a disgruntled student walked onto campus and blugeoned 17 students to death, and then turned the bat on himself" ?
...........and the point I have been trying to make is this, making guns illegal will not keep criminals from owning them, JUST LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.......No thanks
OK see you're not understanding. The PROLIFERATION (that means 'high amount') of gun ownership leads to the ease in ACQUIRING (that means 'getting') an ILLEGAL GUN, or being able to ACQUIRE (there's that word again) a gun if you don't have a license. This is because of the SATURATION (this ALSO means high amount) of guns meaning that it's easier to come by one illegally (usually through stealing, but there are other means such as conversion etc etc). So if you SCALE BACK ('reduce')/Increase the restrictions on legal gun ownership, then the illegal trade would begin to dry up too.

Comprende` ?
2007-12-21 05:35:42
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6987|CH/BR - in UK

*feels ignored*
What about simple control? Why does it have to be either one extreme or the other?

-konfusion
2007-12-21 05:40:02
SharkyMcshark
I'll take two
+132|7222|Perth, Western Australia

konfusion wrote:

*feels ignored*
What about simple control? Why does it have to be either one extreme or the other?

-konfusion
Don't get me wrong, I agree. I'm not saying hit guns with the ban hammer, but I'm saying it should be scaled back (stricter limits on how many guns you can own, some kind of semi regular - annual or bi annual - mental test, some kind of means/merit test for people that want more than one or *insert limit here* gun, etc etc)
2007-12-21 05:41:26
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7088|USA

SharkyMcshark wrote:

lowing wrote:

SharkyMcshark wrote:

lowing wrote:

really? please show some facts that back your statement. Please show where violent crime has gone up amoung citizens with no violent criminal records previously, due to gun ownership.
But that's not what the issue is about. It isn't about completely rational sane people going on shooting sprees. It's about the saturation of gun ownership (among the aforementioned completely sane people) contributing to the level of gun crime.

                  Homicide     Suicide     Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001)             3.98    5.92   0.36
Italy (1997)               0.81     1.1     0.07
Switzerland (1998)   0.50   5.8     0.10
Canada (2002)           0.4     2.0     0.04
Finland (2003)      0.35     4.45     0.10
Australia (2001)     0.24     1.34     0.10
France (2001)             0.21     3.4     0.49
England/Wales (2002)  0.15   0.2     0.03
Scotland (2002)     0.06     0.2     0.02
Japan (2002)              0.02     0.04     0


Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic

OK so these figures aren't to do with crime rates, but they show that the level of gun violence in America is disproportionately larger than that in the rest of the world compared to other first world nations. The point I was making isn't about normal citizens going wacko, but  rather societal factors combined with the large amount of gun ownership forcing people over the edge.

Now here's the point that I've been trying to make that people seem to find very hard to understand. Of course the vast majority of law abiding citizens who buy guns won't snap and go postal. Just owning a gun or seventeen doesn't make you wacko. But the fact that there is such a saturation of firearms undoubtedly makes it easier for your local nutjob/drug dealer to get his/her hands on one. Thats the entire point I've been trying to make. The average law abiding citizen won't go and kill people just because they own guns, but the large volume of legal gun ownership contributes to the ease in which a wacko can get their hands on an 'illegal' (stolen/fell off the back of a truck/whatever) gun.



"Today in Nebraska a disgruntled student walked onto campus and blugeoned 17 students to death, and then turned the bat on himself" ?
...........and the point I have been trying to make is this, making guns illegal will not keep criminals from owning them, JUST LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.......No thanks
OK see you're not understanding. The PROLIFERATION (that means 'high amount') of gun ownership leads to the ease in ACQUIRING (that means 'getting') an ILLEGAL GUN, or being able to ACQUIRE (there's that word again) a gun if you don't have a license. This is because of the SATURATION (this ALSO means high amount) of guns meaning that it's easier to come by one illegally (usually through stealing, but there are other means such as conversion etc etc). So if you SCALE BACK ('reduce')/Increase the restrictions on legal gun ownership, then the illegal trade would begin to dry up too.

Comprende` ?
Oh I see now, so lets follow the example of what making drugs illegal has done for us. Now, NOBODY can smoke dope or crack, or snork cocaine, or shoot heroine. Got it.
2007-12-21 05:47:08
PureFodder
Member
+225|6722

lowing wrote:

SharkyMcshark wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Most school shootings in the US were done by citizens with no criminal record and access to a gun (not necessarily their own gun). If the guns had nothing to do with it then knife, hammer, bat, axe etc. killing sprees would be far more common than gun killing sprees as these weapons are typically more available.
"Today in Nebraska a disgruntled student walked onto campus and blugeoned 17 students to death, and then turned the bat on himself" ?
...........and the point I have been trying to make is this, making guns illegal will not keep criminals from owning them, JUST LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.......No thanks
It will keep the vast majority of criminals from owning them. The vast majority of criminals obey the vast majority of laws, plus their main supplier of guns will be gone.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard