Virginia Tech Shootings - Gun Debate

[Jintor]

Let's ignore that and go back to Numbers.

 

[CptStern]

I probably should have clarified: I am pro-gun when it comes to places like the US - where there are already lots of guns, it makes sense to be able to be able to put yourself on equal terms with an assailant. Yet to make my mind up about here in the UK.

but it's not about bringing yourself to the same level as the assailant ..for starters you're more than likely to be killed by someone you know rather than a complete stranger ..secondly 60% of all gun owners own 4 or more guns, it cant be argued that they're for defense.


lets take an absolute for the sake of argument: if all guns are banned, gun advocates say only criminals would have guns ..well where would the criminals get the guns to begin with if they're banned? canada? what about ammo? if you cant go to the local wal-mart and pick up a box of head exploding bulets how will you kill your intended target? anyways this is not my position because it's unrealistic; it's an absolute and they rarely work in practice

..I do think if it was impletmented there would certainly be spikes of criminal activity but there's no disputing that things like school/work shootings, children shooting their siblings or accidental shootings would dramatically decline ...I mean there is no reason why this headline should ever exist:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE1D81038F930A25752C0A96E948260

and it doesnt exist for the most part in any other developed country, at least not with any frequency ..surely there's a corelation between easy access and this incident ..or this incident, or this incident or even this one ..if you type in "child" and "shooting" into google you'd be hard pressed to find any incidents that are not in the US ...I mean there has to come a time when the preventing the deaths of innocents has to supercede the right to bear arms

It keeps people under the delusion that they can win against the State.

agreed, they wouldnt stand a chance ..it's been awhile since I've agreed with you numbers ...but then you lose me with the rest of your post

Once the secret government orchestrators have pushed too far in their fight to take our freedoms. We will need those guns when a peoples revolution happens

go away

um... eye for an eye, Honestly i would probably tell him that God works in mysterious ways right before I blew his brains out. If i was married...
(Someone mentioned the mysterious ways phrase on one of these threads, i just thought this would be a funny application of the phrase. Apply to forehead)
By the way I hope you guys aren't getting the wrong idea, I'm no "Bible thumper", I just don't like it when people put my belief in my God down. I hope you all understand.

so in other words you pick and choose which parts of your faith to follow? isnt that convienent? ..there's a special place in hell reserved for people like you ...still think it's funny how painfully obvious it is that guns and religion dont go together ..I guess the ability to recognise hypocrisy isnt a strong character trait for those inclined to believe in fanciful stories written my man

Because having a tiger or highly explosive material lying around are both very dangerous. The tiger could get out or a small fire could ignite the explosives.

no shit sherlock ..isnt that the same for guns? this kid didnt club/stab/poison his brother to death

But owning an unarmed locked gun in my house doesn't put anyone in any danger. Theres no threat and no danger. It shouldn't be a crime.

yet these sort of incidents happen all the time ..in fact the death rate for children under the age of 15 due to firearms in the US is 12 times that of the other 25 developed countries combined ...surely there's some corelation with easy access to guns

..even one of our members admitted they have an unlocked loaded gun within easy access to every member of his family. And locked and stored guns makes the justification of self defense nonsensical leading to the conclusion that personal pleasure not defense is the motivating factor behind ownership

So because my friend safely stores guns in his house, you die? Clearly you're not dead so I'm not understanding you...

The only thing that infringes on your right to live is someone killing you

yes and you've just given that person the ability to take my life away ..his right to bear arms interferes with my right to life

 

[Jintor]

The problem i think is mainly in the mindset, but widespread avaliability of guns (Legal or not) is probably the second-largest problem.

By the way, religious belief is not 'protected'. Stop thinking it is, Foxy.

 

[Tyguy]

Most people own guns so they can shoot it, plain and simple. Some are for protection, but come on, i bet theres alot more hand guns (200 million) than there are houses with alarm systems

however, im not for a ban on all guns because it just wouldnt work.

 

[CptStern]

Most people own guns so they can shoot it, plain and simple.

yes otherwise they'd purchase a replica ..in other words ..it's pleasure rather than business that motivates them ..so that whole argument about the need for proterction goes out the door at least for 60% of gun owners in the US

 

[Terminator]

Gun control works but only on a small controlable island with very high security and lack of human freedom (the UK) even there it's not very effective at controlling gun related deaths.
It simply would not work in a country like america.

 

[CptStern]

Gun control works but only on a small controlable island with very high security and lack of human freedom (the UK) even there it's not very effective at controlling gun related deaths.

yes it does work ..notice how the UK has less gun related homicides than say the US ..geez I wonder why that could be?

It simply would not work in a country like america.

and you know this to be true because .......?

 

[Lt. Drebin]

Not that I'm against banning guns, but it's kind of redundant. I have to believe that even a federal ban is not going to keep them out of the hands of the wrong people. It's a similar concept...if you really want some crack...you'll find some eventually. I'll site "the war on drugs"...gosh...sure don't see people doing drugs nowadays...can't find anything anywhere anymore...give me a break. I'm all for even tougher gun control...more so than what we have now...but, I'm sorry, banning would be yet another waste of federal funds/tax dollars that could be far more effectivly spent elsewhere.

I'm surprised no one has discussed interpretation of the Second....seems like a prime time to discuss militia vs private citizen?? no?

 

[Solaris]

I think it would probably be a good idea to pass a bill making the selling or importing of guns into the US illegal from the year 2010. Then slowly schemes good be introduced where the government would buy back guns for a certain amount of money, then outlaw the selling of ammunition in another 3 years. By 50 years things should be okay.

 

[Tyguy]

The right to bear arms
http://www.bustedtees.com/bt/images/BT-secondamendment-gallery-835.jpg

 

[Terminator]

and you know this to be true because .......?

It is a large country with vast reserves of illeagal guns.
The people who are likely to be involved in gun crime will still have guns if control is implemented.

The only thing that will reduce gun crime in america is a change in american social psychology.

 

[CptStern]

It is a large country with vast reserves of illeagal guns.

where are they coming from? certainly not mexico or canada ..in fact most guns used in the US are made i the US:

Number of firearms produced by US manufacturers every minute: 8
Number of handguns produced by US manufacturers every minute: 3

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/more/facts.html

The people who are likely to be involved in gun crime will still have guns if control is implemented.

you mean like pretty much everywhere else in the world?

The only thing that will reduce gun crime in america is a change in american social psychology.

agreed ..that and a reduction in the amount of guns as well getting rid of easy access
you mean like yesterday's shooter? he had a full rap sheet going back years

 

[Lt. Drebin]

where are they coming from? certainly not mexico or canada ..in fact most guns used in the US are made i the US:

I don't entirely agree with this. We have serious issues at our southern border...which I'm sure you know. I understand Mexico has strict gun laws, but they don't prohibit handguns, which you'll find are the culprit behind the bulk of gun related crimes/deaths in the US. They don't prohibit rifles or shotguns as well. Further, back to the borders...the second you illegalize firearms in the US, you create a lucrative market there since they're no longer readily available here. I guarantee that when there's money to be made...and a lot of it...the smuggling will pick up and you'll still wind up with guns in the hands of those that shouldn't have them. So, I'll site drugs, again, since we've been so effective at stemming the influx of them into the country...

I'll say it again, banning all guns would be the mother of all cases of ineffective legislation and the epitomy of overextension.

 

[CptStern]

I don't entirely agree with this. We have serious issues at our southern border...which I'm sure you know. I understand Mexico has strict gun laws, but they don't prohibit handguns, which you'll find are the culprit behind the bulk of gun related crimes/deaths in the US. They don't prohibit rifles or shotguns as well. Further, back to the borders...the second you illegalize firearms in the US, you create a lucrative market there since they're no longer readily available here. I guarantee that when there's money to be made...and a lot of it...the smuggling will pick up and you'll still wind up with guns in the hands of those that shouldn't have them. So, I'll bring up drugs, again, since we've been so effective at stemming the influx of them into the country...

I'll say it again, banning all guns would be the mother of all cases of ineffective legislation and the epitomy of overextension.

again if there was a complete ban on firearms in the US only a small minority would risk breaking the law in order to obtain one ..but law or no law it wouldnt stop them which is exactly the same as in every other country on this earth. If they want a gun they'll get one ..banning guns takes away the opportunity, the means to carry out school shootings or spousal homicide it's not as effective on criminals as on the general publicv ..but given enough time even the most hardest of criminals would have a hard time getting ahold of a gun ..not too mention bullets

 

[Lt. Drebin]

again if there was a complete ban on firearms in the US only a small minority would risk breaking the law in order to obtain one ..but law or no law it wouldnt stop them which is exactly the same as in every other country on this earth.

But, can't you agree that the effectivness would be greatly reduced considering there is already a ludicrous amount of guns in circulation in the US. Further, what percentage do you figure is registered?? How many guns are in existance that are not a matter of public knowledge?? My point is that I think it's overlegislating...you're putting all that responsibility in the hands of, already overtried, law enforcement. There needs to be a balance between banning, certain types of firearms, prepurchase regulation, and post-purchase regulation (stiffer nonregistatrion penalties).

Also, just an aside, in 2005, Mexico had just as many gun-related homicides (as a percentage) as the US. Even amidst strict regulations. So, the answers may not lie in stricter rules and regulations alone...

 

[CptStern]

But, can't you agree that the effectivness would be greatly reduced considering there is already a ludicrous amount of guns in circulation in the US.

sure but you have to start somewhere

Further, what percentage do you figure is registered?? How many guns are in existance that are not a matter of public knowledge??

223 million guns in the US according to US Dept. of Justice but I havent been able to determine if they account for all guns registered or otherwise ..I've also seen estimates of between 230 and 270 million ..however many legit owners also have unregistered guns, even dealers often unwillingly sell unregistered firearms ..criminals dont have a monopoly on that

My point is that I think it's overlegislating...you're putting all that responsibility in the hands of, already overtried, law enforcement.

what responsibility? i'm not following you ..I also think you're taking this from a canadian perspective ..gun registration is a all together different animal in canada

There needs to be a balance between banning, certain types of firearms, prepurchase regulation, and post-purchase regulation (stiffer nonregistatrion penalties).

again that's pretty much the norm in canada but we could do with tougher controls ..specifically dealers selling unregister guns across the border. stiffer or mandatory sentences for crimes involving guns etc

Also, just an aside, in 2005, Mexico had just as many gun-related homicides (as a percentage) as the US. Even amidst strict regulations. So, the answers may not lie in stricter rules and regulations alone...

well to be fair mexico recently held a "trade your guns for video games" campaign ..so I doubt it's all that strictly enforced ..not too mention the drug wars, the trobles in the chiapas and a general breakdown in law and order that is not really comparable to the US








more fuel to add to the fire:

Cho was carrying a backpack that contained receipts for a March purchase of a Glock 9 mm pistol.

Ballistics tests by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms showed that one gun was used in Monday's two separate campus attacks that were two hours apart.

As a permanent legal resident of the United States, Cho was eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of any felony criminal charges, a federal immigration official said.

how is a mentally unstable person able to purchase a gun? some of you say that gun laws only punish legit gun owners not criminals ..but in this case it would also have punished potential criminals ..it seems to me that this sort of legislation is doing exactly what it's supposed to do:

Cho was eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of any felony criminal charges

not enough legislation in this case enabled cho to kill 32 people

 

[Dev]

lol, come on, you can't deny that (if you do the research) there is a shadow gov't that is pulling the strings of America. I'm talking about the rich, royal, elite, bloodlines that own the private banks, own most of the media, and so on (Illuminati). Not that I'm saying I believe in this case it was a gov't black-op like in the article, although I'm not scrapping the possibility of that. I just posted it to give some other info.

Just ingnore this post if you want, take it or leave it. I'm just stating my view.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Elites and cabals in society that erode the principle of democracy are real, tangible and dangerous - but you do a grave injustice to rational discourse, and to the cause of raising social awareness, by presenting them as some dark, close-knit cabal hell-bent on ruling the world according to a secret puppeteer plan. Not to mention framing it as conspiracy theory and involving the Illuminati menace and their lizardman masters. Not to mention citing sources like Prisonplanet, widely known if not reviled for their percieved innaccuracy, their unreliability, and the kind of flimsy, spurious grasping-at-straws displayed in the article you linked.

EDIT: Deleted something that was not relevant.

 

[kirovman]

Interesting Info:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6562529.stm

More specifically:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42812000/gif/_42812111_gun_deaths_glob_map416.gif

Sorry, the last two are images but the image tags don't work.

I think the stats speak volumes. The UK does pretty well on that, despite all the media hysteria (I suppose these stats are 2000, but I don't think things have changed radically since then).

Although, it's all computer games's fault actually.

 

[Dev]

Hmm. well, thats kinda the way I see them, a "dark, close-knit cabal hell-bent on ruling the world"

You think illuminati is just a conspiracy theory?

And we're not a Democracy, were a constitutional Republic, and we have gone so far away from that. "They" have been attacking the constitution since 911. So again, no to not being allowed to have guns, it's our constitutional right.

 

[kirovman]

Or a theocratic monarchy?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Hmm. well, thats kinda the way I see them, a "dark, close-knit cabal hell-bent on ruling the world"

You think illuminati is just a conspiracy theory?

And we're not a Democracy, were a constitutional Republic, and we have gone so far away from that. "They" have been attacking the constitution since 911. So again, no to not being allowed to have guns, it's our constitutional right.

Looks like it's supposed to be a representative democracy to me. What I said equally applies to the UK, where I live, which is at least on paper a representative democracy. Here, Parliament is supposed to be sovereign. However, there are many forces which stop Britain from being a 'liberal democracy' in the true sense of the term.

But I am not talking about some meticulous 'they' following a grand master plan. The characterisation of democracy-buggering phenomena in societies as any kind of formal 'they' is, as far as I can see, both disingenous and unsubstantiated; more than that, it makes people suspicious and more likely to dismiss you. This is even more pronounced when you start mentioning the illuminati - a group whose dominance, suffice to say, has never been made apparent to me. I have yet to see someone present a coherent case (if you want to try, don't do it right here - start another thread, although I predict Mecha may lock it unless it is very, very persuasive).

This is the nice way of saying 'Illuminati domination = conspiracy theory bullshit with little credible evidence'.

I would very much like to write more - and to detail what I mean when I talk about elites - but I haven't the time. I plan to make an expansive thread on it here but not when I'm trying to revise for exams that will decide my future.

However, I'll say this: I think your focus on convenient, coherent enemies like shadow government groups and on the present situation post-9/11 is misplaced and I think it's indicative that you're looking at things the wrong way - the easy way and the blind way. Because power elites, cabals and old-boy networks have been operating and asserting their influence for a hell of a lot longer than just the last six years.

I am talking about the exercise of non-democratic power - power that exists where it shouldn't, which is to say where the people have not placed it.

I won't go on to point out the glaring holes in the Prison Planet article - unless this is explicitly requested - because they're really bleedin' obvious.

 

[Dev]

Because power elites, cabals and old-boy networks have been operating and asserting their influence for a hell of a lot longer than just the last six years.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, its been going on longer than six years, I just talking about the huge jump in the decline of America in the last six years. I understand corruption and influence like this has been around for ages.

I still have a lot to learn man, I think we all do. But let me ask if you have seen a documentary or read about the Illuminati. I wouldn't mind just making a new post on the subject and try to provide as much information about this organization as I can.

I don't want to be a bother to anyone who is trying to stay on subject in this thread.

 

[Jintor]

Start a new one where we can argue about the Illuminati or Majestic-12, (Philadelphia Experiment! Area 51! MIB! FBI! CIA! IRS!) then. This is about Gun Control.

Anyways, I think you could gradually phase guns out of America, but right now there are way to many guns in circulation to make a total ban effective.

 

[Direwolf]

Cho's being a complete psychopath allowed him to kill 33 people.

Of course if he didn't have a firearm he would never have killed that many people (assuming he didn't make a bomb or something). But just as easy an argument could be made that he'd never have killed that many people if EVERYONE had a firearm. Both scenarios involve major problems.

If gun control was as easy to solve as most people seem to think, then it would have been solved long ago. Instead its a hideously complicated mess that involves factors political, social, economic, and historical all interacting simultaneously. So don't patronize the people on the other side of the debate as you, and try and understand what they're saying so that someday we can make some progress here.

 

[Cole]

Don't forget that right to bear arms and have a gun is part of our culture. You can't just take it away without causing a huge stir on society. Around here hunting is just huge. If you took away guns you would see deer populations getting much bigger and there would be a lot more car accidents with people hitting deer.

Also States that allow you to carry a conceled weapon, crime is a little less. Simply because if you walk into a place and try and rob it, there might be 4 other people pulling a gun on you. This keeps our culture(and doesn't cause a major stir in society) and helps fight the problem. I would agree that taking out guns all together would do a better job, but it's not part of our culture. I mean if you took away beer from everyone because it causes so many accidents a year... well to bad it's part of our culture people will riot and want it back(which they should get it back the government represents the people).

Personally I believe gun control should come down to more local/city laws. Around here if you banned guns, deer population and other animals would just get out of hand. However if you banned guns in milwaukee, you could probably improve the city quite a bit. I believe more local laws need to be present when it comes to gun control. I think State laws arn't fit.

 

[15357]

I'd say there should be legal firearms, but special tax for them, like tobacco.


And the people who buy them should be put under surveilance for any signs of malcontentcy, sociopathic behavior, or just plain anger problems. And all should be made to take a little psychiatric examination beforehand. Of course, that'd take more money to keep watcheyes, but hence the tax. 30%? 40%?

 

[Direwolf]

Of course that might push up the numbers on illegal gun ownership too, but maybe not enough to matter. Screening for psychiatric problems is notoriously hard though, so while the idea is good I wonder how it would work. Its difficult to tell when someone is going to snap.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Didn't Clinton push for a waiting period before buying guns, but get defeated?

 

[mortiz]

Cho's being a complete psychopath allowed him to kill 33 people.

Of course if he didn't have a firearm he would never have killed that many people (assuming he didn't make a bomb or something). But just as easy an argument could be made that he'd never have killed that many people if EVERYONE had a firearm. Both scenarios involve major problems.

If gun control was as easy to solve as most people seem to think, then it would have been solved long ago. Instead its a hideously complicated mess that involves factors political, social, economic, and historical all interacting simultaneously. So don't patronize the people on the other side of the debate as you, and try and understand what they're saying so that someday we can make some progress here.

If everyone had a gun chances are there'd be a death every week. You simply can't put weapons in peoples hands and then trust them to know how to use it. Hardened criminals if they want it badly enough will always find a way to get hold of weapon, it's the normal people wandering around with guns that can be really dangerous, those that have had no training or simply training on how to shoot, not how to use a gun. Those are the people who can get spooked and blam. We'll never know what lengths he would have gone to get hold of a weapon, but being able to pick one up from the local store with minimal background checking didn't help the situation.

 

[CptStern]

I think many people miss a pretty large part of the gun control equation:

Number of firearms produced by US manufacturers every minute: 8
Number of handguns produced by US manufacturers every minute: 3
Number of handguns produced every 2 minutes by ROF in 1995: 1

ROF = Ring of Fire companies ..makers of cheap handguns



somebody's making a shitload of money

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/more/facts.html

 

[Javert]

Aside from an outdated constitution (Prince William has yet to ask me to quarter him), there is NO excuse for civilians to own assault weapons or semi-automatic pistols for self-defense.

Sure, hunting rifles are practical enough. But there is no excuse for any hunting rifle to have a clip larger than 10 bullets (most use only 3-4) and more firepower than a US Marine.

I honestly do not see a debate here on morals or human rights. Only that of outdated logic and a gun industry holding onto its profits.

 

[tehsolace]

The original "right to bear arms" concept in the united states comes from the 2nd amendment, which was created to represent the protection of the people to fight (in a military sense) for their country.

Our fore-fathers didn't create the amendment so that people would be allowed to hunt deer and shoot burglars. The reason behind it is much more important - it really has nothing to do with having a gun for personal protection... although it is almost impossible to due away with one of these without doing the same to the other (they aren't mutually exclusive).

 

[Cormeh]

Chris Rock said it best: "We don't need gun control, we need bullet control".

$5k per bullet? I think he was onto something.

 

[Terminator]

Chris Rock said it best: "We don't need gun control, we need bullet control".

$5k per bullet? I think he was onto something.

Well that would be stupid because bullets are pretty easy to smuggle, re-load (re using the cases, filling with powder and fitting bullet) so you'd be making yet another wealthy crminal business.

 

[Cormeh]

And guns/ammo doesn't already make a wealthy criminal business?

 

[MiccyNarc]

Chris Rock said it best: "We don't need gun control, we need bullet control".

$5k per bullet? I think he was onto something.

Pointless, I can get equipment to make bullets at home.

I'd rather live in a society where everyone carried a sidearm than a society where one nutjob can walk into a building and know everyone would be defenseless.
People don't go on knife killing sprees, why? Because they know someone would be able to wrestle them and disarm them.
People wouldn't go on gun killing sprees if they knew there would be a deadly backlash if they tried.

 

[CptStern]

Pointless, I can get equipment to make bullets at home.

I'd rather live in a society where everyone carried a sidearm than a society where one nutjob can walk into a building and know everyone would be defenseless.
People don't go on knife killing sprees, why? Because they know someone would be able to wrestle them and disarm them.
People wouldn't go on gun killing sprees if they knew there would be a deadly backlash if they tried.

or if they didnt have a gun in the first place ..notice that nutjobs going into work and mowing every one down is almost exclusive to the US? it's such a rare occurance in my country that when there was a school shooting most students thought it was a car back firing and didnt pay much attention ..the mass murder phenomenon in the US is almost a weekly occurance ..access to gun whether you like it or not has to be the prevailing reason why it's so prevelant in the US ..there is no other rational explanation


homer simpson said it best when trying to purchase a gun on the simpsons:

"Five day waiting period? But I'm angry now!"

 

[MiccyNarc]

Weekly occurance? This is the first incident of this sort in a year as far as I can remember. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's hardly "weekly".

 

[Cormeh]

Pointless, I can get equipment to make bullets at home.

I'd rather live in a society where everyone carried a sidearm than a society where one nutjob can walk into a building and know everyone would be defenseless.
People don't go on knife killing sprees, why? Because they know someone would be able to wrestle them and disarm them.
People wouldn't go on gun killing sprees if they knew there would be a deadly backlash if they tried.

Go you?

I live in a society where it is outright illegal to have a firearm in your possession or on your person. (Give or take a few farmers and occasional armed police).

Why do I feel safer? Because no one in their right mind has the mentality that owning a gun is for "safety", because not one person can find it cheap or easy to obtain a gun.

The worst gun crime to happen in my lifetime? Dunblane. Same story, mentally ill person gets their hands on a weapon and murders innocent people. Only this time, children. Not 16 year olds, not 21+ years olds, children. People don't go on murderous killing sprees with guns because it's "easier", it's because they're ****ed up.