Debate and Discussion

Right to bear ARMS
subcultured at 11:41AM, April 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
IMO its an old antiquated right, it should be modified to only military or peace officers. YOu should not be able to buy it off any gun store. The increased gun violence is from the culture of gun loving individuals. If we stop the sell of guns to citizens and make it illegal for them to carry, the gun violence will start to decrease.

It's not the wild wild west anymore, order and justice is not solved by the tip of the gun. People shouldn't be armed. there's mace, tasers, and panic horns to fight attackers.

Today's school shooting in VA TECH is just an example of how out of control things have gotten when people are armed. 21 deaths…not including the killer. That's madness.

If you look at other countries that illegalize personal guns, you see a trend that thier crime rate is smaller.
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:02PM
reconjsh at 12:25PM, April 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
Interesting.

I see some danger in this.
1) Opening up and possibly editing that constitutional right opens the door for others to be opened and edited. (Ye olde slippery slope arguement)

2) Part of the intent of this right is to give power to the people should their government become too powerful and corrupt. There's a lot the founding fathers said in regards to the right to bear arms and I don't have the time to go into all of it. Ultimately though, I like having guns in my home so I can protect my family, defend myself from invaders, and, in case of zombie invasion, kill my dog before he gnaws away my favorite body parts.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
isukun at 1:04PM, April 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
The right was granted based on the uncertainty the founding fathers had in our new government. Times change, though. It's more than two hundred years later and our government has more than proved itself. What's more, allowing gun ownership won't necessarily help the people rise up against a corrupt government. The military has much more advanced weapons and more destructive capability than the public. Imagine if a second civil war were to occur in these times. The people would lose, badly. maintaining that right only makes people lose focus on the fact that w still have the power to change the shape of our country without resorting to violence.

As for banning gun ownership, though, I don't see why guns in general should be banned. Certain types of guns serve no purpose in our society apart from killing each other. Handguns are one of the best examples of a weapon with no constructive purpose. We buy handguns to protect ourselves from other people who potentially have handguns. If nobody had handguns, then a baseball bat would be just as effective against someone breaking into your house. Quite honestly, I wouldn't feel as bad about knocking someone unconscious as I would about shooting them.

Rifles, however, still serve a purpose outside of killing people. Plus, unlike a handgun, a rifle is much harder to keep hidden on your person. It's pretty hard to walk down the street with a rifle and not have people notice. It's one of the major reason I attribute to the murder rate being lower in Canada. More people own rifles instead of handguns.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
ccs1989 at 2:16PM, April 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,656
joined: 1-2-2006
I'm all for banning firearms. I think they're stupid little contraptions which allow far too much death to go on. But then you have to deal with those people in the NRA who back people like the current president. >:/
http://ccs1989.deviantart.com

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:38AM
Phantom Penguin at 2:25PM, April 16, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
I agree. but god luck getting them away from the people who own them. Thats a whole other thing, kind of like the backlash from prohibition. Its part of the culture and it would be a big mess to take it away.

Personally I own two guns. Could I do without them? I wish. When not living on a military base I lived in a really bad part of detriot. Could I learn samurai skills and protect my house with my hands and feet? No. I'm slow from injurys and my joints aren't what they use to be. A gun works.

But if the crime rate took a downturn i would give them up, and i know it would create a nasty circle with everyone saying what i am. But according to a study i saw most REGISTERED firearms are owned in suburban areas. What do they need them for?

Meh. My opinion.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
Aurora Moon at 2:30PM, April 16, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
like I said in the other thread with the school shooting–

Banning guns wouldn't really solve anything. Criminals would still find ways to get guns.. espeically though the black market.

Then the normal folks, who uses their guns in an responsible manner, and have lisences to prove that they know how to use an gun…. would have no guns at all to protect themselves against an criminal who purcased thiers illegally.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
isukun at 11:05PM, April 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Banning guns wouldn't really solve anything. Criminals would still find ways to get guns.. espeically though the black market.

There is a black market for guns in the US, but the vast majority of those guns are stolen from legitimate gun owners in the US. Besides, there isn't some vast network of criminals which buy and sell firearms. Most criminals are just small-time crooks with no underground connections. They get their firearms the same way the black market does, they steal them. Outlawing firearms would severely cut back on black market sales since a major source of gun aquisitions would be eliminated. This would in turn make the business more espensive (relying solely on imports makes things much harder) and less accessible to small time criminals or the random student who decides to shoot up his school.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
lothar at 5:14AM, April 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
this thread seems pretty reationary, why is it that everybody is only ever reacting to things ?
thats what the forth amendment is all about . Not being reactionary. it's about being Pro-active . to protect youreselves from opressors. if you want gun control, look no further than the history of feudal Japan as an example . they took everybodys swords away and the only people allowed to have swords were the samurai . and those guys could be the biggest assholes if they wanted to. they were allowed to kill any lower class person just for looking at them the wrong way, Because those peasant dudes didn't have any means to even the score .
That is the endgame of “gun control”
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
ozoneocean at 5:37AM, April 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,802
joined: 1-2-2006
OK.
We need to be reactionary because the only time people listen to the control argument is after one of those needless, stupid shootings.

The mainstram thrust of the gun control argument is the banning of military style weapons:
That's NOT all guns!
Only Automatic and semi-automatic dangerous guns made specifically for killing humans. With an ordinary bolt action rifle you can't do that much damage! You can basically kill just as successfully with a sword, bow and arrow, knife or crossbow. But a gun with a large magazine (and that does include pistols) is a VERY dangerous weapon, as dangerous as a landmine or a bomb, and would you support anyone to own landmines or bombs? Because they can all be used to slaughter the same amount of people.

Being allowed to own an assault rifle that you call a “hunting rifle” and that is purpose built to be converted to fully automatic fire and comes supplied with the ability to easily add 20, 30, 50 or even 100 round magazines to it isn't a good thing! This WILL NOT protect you from "criminals" because it only takes ONE bullet to kill someone.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
isukun at 8:04AM, April 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
I'd be less worried about assault rifles than handguns. The guy at tech probably wouldn't have made it across campus to shootup those classrooms had be been carrying an assault rifle. Most gun crimes involve small arms.

What scares me more than events like this is the reaction to them. While a rare few people are calling for gun control as a result, I've seen a lot more who think the appropriate response is to allow college kids to carry firearms to class. Do these people seriously not remember what college was like? Hell, one conservative website even claimed that everyone should be carrying a gun, and it WASN'T a joke.

That is the endgame of “gun control”

We don't live in a feudal society where the lower class people have no power, so no, I'd have to say that isn't the endgame of gun control. Japan currently has a ban on firearms, yet you don't see samurai testing their guns on the peasants.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
nighthawk41 at 9:25AM, April 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 110
joined: 1-13-2006
Banning guns won't make them impossible to get. People will still get a hold of guns just like they can get a hold of Ecstasy, Meth, and other drugs. In fact, guns are more widely produced than drugs, so they may be even easier to get.
Also, there was a report that Chicago issued gun control laws, and the crime rate raised beyond that of LA and New York. (source)
Let's not forget that you can kill people with other things. Give me an object, I can guarantee you that I will find a way to kill you.
But those things that I can kill you with, doesn't make it any easier for hunting. I probably wouldn't be able to sneak up on a deer using a chainsaw.
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q258/nighthawk41/BodomBeachTerrorsig.png Edited by Admin.
Please make your sig either 250 x 100 or 468 x 60 pixels. Thankyou.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:16PM
subcultured at 9:49AM, April 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
nothing is impossible to get, but banning guns from ordinary citizens will decrease gun production and distribution. therefore decrease guns out in the streets….therefore less death from guns.

Merchants of death will begin to loose business
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:02PM
SpANG at 10:28AM, April 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
CANADA has more guns than the U.S. (per person), yet violent gun crime is much, much lower. ENGLAND has more violent crime (per capita), but less guns. How can that be if guns are the culprits?

In my opinion-
This is yet another EDUCATION argument, and alarmists taking away rights of people. People need to act more responsible with guns, not have them taken away. Should the laws of PURCHASING guns be up scaled, or at least enforced? Hell yes.

If you are going down this road to abolish guns, you may as well go down the road to abolish violent video games too. As they get more and more realistic, people just get desensitized to the violence. Wait until VR kicks in. Don't think nobody will try to pass that law.

BAD PEOPLE will always get guns. Even if they are not accessible in the U.S., it would be easy enough to get them from another country (ei, Canada, Mexico). Drugs are illegal too, but it doesn't make them ‘hard to get’ if you want them badly enough. I'm pretty sure drug traffickers don't go to ‘illegaldrugs.com’ yet they don't seem to be in short supply, do they?

…So, you'd only be making it harder for the LAW ABIDING people.

Reconjsh is right on the money about defense. Our forefathers gave us the right so that if the Government becomes too corrupt, we have a way of defending ourselves from it. This is where the ‘types of guns’ comes in BTW, because if your enemy has a 5.56 mm M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, but all you have is a shotgun, guess who loses?

I don't own a gun, and I probably never will. But, as usual, I will defend the RIGHT for an American to have one. Now does that make the NRA a ‘straight and narrow’ organization? Ah, NO. Not really.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:52PM
nighthawk41 at 10:30AM, April 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 110
joined: 1-13-2006
subcultured
nothing is impossible to get, but banning guns from ordinary citizens will decrease gun production and distribution. therefore decrease guns out in the streets….therefore less death from guns.

Merchants of death will begin to loose business

And what if someone gets a hold of a gun, goes into a family's home and starts murdering the family members one by one? And the family had their gun taken away from them because of these stupid laws. Sure they can call the cops, but I guarantee you, most of the family would be dead before the cops could get there.
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q258/nighthawk41/BodomBeachTerrorsig.png Edited by Admin.
Please make your sig either 250 x 100 or 468 x 60 pixels. Thankyou.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:16PM
ozoneocean at 10:32AM, April 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,802
joined: 1-2-2006
nighthawk41
Let's not forget that you can kill people with other things. Give me an object, I can guarantee you that I will find a way to kill you.
This is childish silliness. sheer crazy twittering nonsense!

For one thing, gun control dose NOT mean banning hunting riles!

For a second thing, you DO NOT grow guns, you cannot make them out of simple ingredients either, they are NOTHING like drugs at all: you have to build them, this requires factories usually, especially with bullets. You CAN of course make them yourself but the knowledge is a lot more specialised and advanced than mere narcotics, the tools are also more expensive: guns are much harder to make than drugs.

For a third thing, you CAN NOT kill with other things as easily as you can with guns. Why the hell does anybody imagine that we use guns at all anyway? Because they look cool? NO, because they're better at killing than almost any weapon ever made, except for explosives and poison gas. you can't run from a bullet, you can't block a bullet with your arm, you can't duck a bullet, you can't even protect yourself with a shield unless it's VERY resilient. A gun with a large capacity magazine can kill one person after another with total and complete ease, you can kill tens of people if you're determined enough, they can't hide or run from you, and you can do it all in a few minutes. From a thousand yards away you can still die, hiding in your car you can still die, one after another a shooter can destroy lives in an instant.

Now you try doing that with a knife and I'll laugh at you until I wet myself.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
SpANG at 11:20AM, April 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
ian_feverdream
Don't ban guns, make bullets cost $1000 each.
And then we'll need to throw Trillions more at the military. No thanks.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:52PM
ccs1989 at 12:41PM, April 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,656
joined: 1-2-2006
Despite the fact that I would like guns to be banned, I don't think guns are causing the problem. There's merit to the saying “Guns don't kill people, people kill people.” Guns just make it easier.

For example, the UK banned all handguns larger than a .22 after a massacre in 1997, but handgun-related crimes were up 40% after that year. However Switzerland makes guns easily available to it's citizens, but the gun related crimes are incredibly low.

So it's more like the culture or society is to blame, not the tools.
http://ccs1989.deviantart.com

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:38AM
isukun at 2:34PM, April 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
CANADA has more guns than the U.S. (per person), yet violent gun crime is much, much lower. ENGLAND has more violent crime (per capita), but less guns. How can that be if guns are the culprits?

First off, as I've mentioned before, handguns are most often used in gun related crime. Canada, although it has more guns per capita, also has a much higher percentage of rifles than in the US. In the case of England and violent crimes, it really depends on how you classify “violent crime.” In the survery which showed England besting us in violent crime, they were also including criminal acts like simple burglary and mugging. Those are more common in England, but generally don't result in death. Now if you look at murder in both countries, the per capita homicide rate in the US is five times that of England. Rape is three times that of the English. Sure, we get less car jackers, but somehow that seems like less of a loss.

This is yet another EDUCATION argument, and alarmists taking away rights of people.

Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. The majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally aquired fireams and the majority of those illegally aquired fireams are stolen from responsible gun owners. How are you going to educate people who steal guns to use them irresponsibly responsible gun ownership?

BAD PEOPLE will always get guns. Even if they are not accessible in the U.S., it would be easy enough to get them from another country (ei, Canada, Mexico). Drugs are illegal too, but it doesn't make them ‘hard to get’ if you want them badly enough. I'm pretty sure drug traffickers don't go to ‘illegaldrugs.com’ yet they don't seem to be in short supply, do they?

Drugs are easier to smuggle or even make in this country. They are more readily available because they are much more accessible. They don't rely on established manufacturers for their supply. The black market for guns is strongest in areas where guns are already available. In Iraq, the US presence created a boom in the black market gun sales because a new supply of firearms became available once US troops moved into the country. The same is true in the US. Guns can be aquired easily through illegal sources because there are so many legal guns already out there. As Ozoneocean said, te black market doesn't produce guns, they have to get them FROM somewhere. In this case, it is much easier, less risky and cheaper to get them from within.

This is where the ‘types of guns’ comes in BTW, because if your enemy has a 5.56 mm M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, but all you have is a shotgun, guess who loses?

Depends on the range and who gets off the first shot. Quite honestly my problem is with smaller arms anyway. People need ot get out of this “bigger is better” mentality. For a criminal, it is much better to carry a gun that doesn't make you conspicuous. Handguns have no use as hunting devices and are not as efficient as a weapon “for the revolution.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Aurora Moon at 2:39PM, April 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
ccs1989
Despite the fact that I would like guns to be banned, I don't think guns are causing the problem. There's merit to the saying “Guns don't kill people, people kill people.” Guns just make it easier.

For example, the UK banned all handguns larger than a .22 after a massacre in 1997, but handgun-related crimes were up 40% after that year. However Switzerland makes guns easily available to it's citizens, but the gun related crimes are incredibly low.

So it's more like the culture or society is to blame, not the tools.

that's exactly what I was gonna say when I had the time to post….

expect you said it better than what I was gonna say.

another factor to keep in mind is that crimminals are less likely to commit crimes against other people if they know that those citizens have the ablity to own guns, and most likely do own one.

they'd think: “Wow, nice house and everything! must have tons of goodies inside… but, they most likely own an gun or something.. is it worth it getting shot over the goodies? hmm.”

one thing I do think should be done though, is more regulations to own an gun. in some states, all you have to do is buy an lisence and be of legal age to be able to own an gun. sometimes you don't even need an liescene, all you have to do is put out your ID card, your info and the gun shops gives you one provided that you also give out cash.

In Texas and other places where they put a lot of vaule on being an responsible, safe gun owner… you have to go though this gun training, and when resigstering for an gun the people also have to look up your background–to see whenever you had been in jail before, whenever you were an criminal, whenever you had any mental illnesses or not.
They have the right to refuse to sell you an gun if there's any indiction of you being unstable, or having been in jail for very serious charges.

so basically, in Texas not just anybody can own an gun– you have to prove that you're an responsible person who wouldn't use it half-cocked all the time.

as much as I hate guns and sometimes wish it would be banned, I do feel that Texas' method of doing things is better than what a lot of state are doing currently.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
SarahN at 3:06PM, April 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,581
joined: 1-1-2006
Yes, people will still probably be able to get them through the black market…but wouldn't shootings still decrease if guns were illegal? Isn't that what matters?

I personally hate the quote “guns don't kill people, people do” (or however it's said)…well, yes…exactly…there will always be stupid people in the world. That's why it isn't right for anybody to own a gun.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:22PM
ccs1989 at 4:26PM, April 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,656
joined: 1-2-2006
But the problem is when you look at it the evidence doesn't support the idea that gun control = less gun violence.
http://ccs1989.deviantart.com

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:38AM
Aurora Moon at 6:20PM, April 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
SarahN
I personally hate the quote “guns don't kill people, people do” (or however it's said)…well, yes…exactly…there will always be stupid people in the world. That's why it isn't right for anybody to own a gun.


without guns, the whole gun violence thing would just move on to other methods of violence…

like that whole college school shooting thing, if guns were banned then that one pyscho would had still found some way of killing that many students at once if he was really derimined…

so he might just resort to something, like arson. so he might build some bunch of bombs, and set them off, and enjoy the “fireworks”.

Then it would be no longer the VA Shooting, it'd be the VA bombings.

So as much as you hate that saying, SarahN, it's true. People DO kill people, regardless of the weapon.
if some lunatic wanted to find some way to kill many people at once even without guns in existance, they would find some other way to do it. Whenever it be poision, bombs, throwing knives, or even just setting an whole damn building on fire.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
SarahN at 10:22PM, April 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,581
joined: 1-1-2006
If someone wanted to get guns or explosives badly enough (or even make them) and shoot/blow up a place, they probably would somehow. I can't argue you with you there. I just think we should make it much harder for crazies to get their hands on them.

If that Virginia Tech shooter couldn't get ahold of those guns, it would've been much harder to kill that many people with other means…as for building a bomb? Well, possibly…though very unlikely. Perhaps pipe bombs…

But the problem is when you look at it the evidence doesn't support the idea that gun control = less gun violence.
I don't know if making guns illegal would decrease gun violence a load…I'm assuming it would help. Again, assuming. Either way I still don't see what's so horrible about only military and authorities having guns (or being the only ones supposed to).


Geh…really late and I got a headache. So if my debatey-ness blows than I'll try to make a better post later.^^;
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:22PM
isukun at 10:33PM, April 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
But the problem is when you look at it the evidence doesn't support the idea that gun control = less gun violence.

Actually, when you look at the evidence, it does support that idea. Look at any country with bans on firearms and you will find less gun violence. The only statistics the gun advocates can point to is “violent crime.” Gun control doesn't stop violent crime, but the problem with using that stat is that violent crime constitutes far more than just crimes which result in personal injury or death.

without guns, the whole gun violence thing would just move on to other methods of violence…

I still find this to be one of the weakest arguments, ever. So we should expect wacko students to knife 60 people in a classroom with no resistance? Or maybe street gangs will start drive-by-baseball batting people? Even if crime doesn't drop off, the resulting severe injuries and deaths from violent crimes would and that's a trade-off I'm willing to make.

like that whole college school shooting thing, if guns were banned then that one pyscho would had still found some way of killing that many students at once if he was really derimined…

I doubt it. Besides the fact that reliable bomb materials are not readily available in Blacksburg, eyewitness reports seem to suggest the shooter wasn't sure of what he was doing even after the first shootings. He kept peering into one of the classrooms as if he was having second thoughts about what he was about to do. So far, there isn't any real evidence that he even planned a massacre from the beginning. After the initial shootings, he had to go back to his room to get the ammo for the shootings in the academic building. If he had planned it from the beginning, he would have had more ammo on him from the start. If it wasn't premeditated, there is no reason to believe he would have still gone through with the shootings had he had time to vent and not had a deadly weapon in his possession at the time.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
subcultured at 11:56PM, April 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
there are more crimes committed with guns than there are with using it as self defense.
the negative aspect outwieghts the positive.
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:02PM
ozoneocean at 1:29AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,802
joined: 1-2-2006
subcultured
there are more crimes committed with guns than there are with using it as self defense.
the negative aspect outwieghts the positive.
Exactly!
Sub and Isukun make excellent points! But most people just seem to ignore what Isukun says in reply to these rather feeble arguments put forth in defence of ownership of semi-automatic and automatic weapons. Try reading what he says in response and then taking it in, he quite easily refutes claims like “criminals will still get illegal guns”, or “violence will just move to other methods” and yet the same erroneous statements are made in favour of these types of firearms again and again.

I suspect people aren't actually reading or understanding the argument fully…

Ok then, if you think semi-automatic and automatic weapons are harmless non-dangerous fun, then why can't we all have anti-personnel mines? Those are made for defence. What about plastic explosive with timers? Why can't we have those? Wouldn't it be fun to play with them? What is so much more dangerous about those items that we can't have them, but you think that pistols, sub-machineguns, Semi-automatic shotguns, repeater rifles, assault rifles, light and heavy machineguns, auto cannons, rotary machineguns and whatever other crazy device you can think of are somehow benign?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
Roguehill at 7:13AM, April 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 211
joined: 1-3-2007
Look, banning all guns would make folks feel like they've done something worthwhile…and be absolutely useless.
I'm sure I could use the Internet to have the “pieces” of firearms sold legally to me from overseas to assemble into some kind of awesome chaingun.
Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? No guns there, just lots of fertilizer and some knowhow.
The folks that say “hey, if we took away all the guns, then there'd just be folks with bats and knives” aren't putting serious thought into killing people.
There are all kinds of horrible, horrible things that can be whipped up in the kitchen with household cleansers, and folks that really, really want to kill someone find the books on how to do that. Or, they find the guy who's willing to sell them legal firearm “parts”.
Or Nitrogen.
Or Cyanide.
Or Cholrine.
There have always been those crazies that just have to kill people to “settle a score” or “prove a point”. Unfortunately, they look just like everyone else. These folks will always be able to use some way to kill people…lots of them. They'll drive their car onto some train tracks, or blow up some fertilizer, or gun down folks in classrooms. As our population continues to increase, it will be easier and easier for these individuals to get access to large groups of unsuspecting people. A guy in the mid 1800's with a cannon could do a lot less damage then than a fellow with a cannon could do today.
The only thing that we can really do are the things we've always done, try to find and stop them before they do it, and try to find them to punish them after they've done it.

…which is that absolutely unsatisfying answer we're left with after something like the VT shooting. 8(

GHOST ZERO
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:09PM
ozoneocean at 7:33AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,802
joined: 1-2-2006
It's access to the firearms that makes the difference though. Someone like this fool in the VT shooting most likely didn't intend to go out and kill so many people at once, but with the kind of weapons he had it's so very simple, they're also very easy to come by.
No clever planning or lots of money involved there.

Whereas bombings generally take more forethought and intelligence to plan out, to construct and organise; firearms need none of that. A person with almost no intelligence, education, ability or anything else can become a mass murderer in minutes. -As Martin Bryant at Port Arthur in the state of Tasmania in Australia proved.
- even that extremely stupid, pathetic lowlife, unintelligent moron was able to use his firearms on a mass-murder spree that claimed 35 victims. Funnily enough it was the only state at the time where assault weapons were legal
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
Ronson at 8:20AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
If you want to use the argument that we need to ban/control guns because of the nutjobs who occasionally go on a rampage and kill people then you've lost the argument in my opinion.

After all, more people die in automobile accidents every year than die in relation to gun-related violence. Even fewer die during these shooting sprees. No one suggests banning automobiles or making them prohibitively expensive (either as a penalty or by excessive safety features).

If this guy didn't have a gun, he may well have used an automobile to take as many people with him as he could have. Who knows?

The questions is there any way to prevent emotionally unstable - but not certified - people from getting their hands on a dangerous weapon of some sort? No, there aren't.

I think that the root causes of these shooting sprees should be explored. Do these things really not ever happen in other countries, or are we (again) just being U.S.-centric in our analysis? I'll need some help from the DD international community to know this.

If it is intrinsic to our country, is it really because guns are easy to get, or is it something that our education/economic/political system actually encourages? Someone here said that the solution is in education, and I tend to agree - though I don't know exactly where education is failing these people.

And I know this is a particularly crass statement, but several hundred people have just been murdered in Iraq today…on top of the several hundred yesterday … and the day before that … etc. I'm not sure what the recent body count is in Darfur right now … Irrelevant? I wonder…
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
subcultured at 8:22AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
gun is use for killing
automobile is use for driving

i don't get your point.
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:02PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved