Funny how if a guy kills someone with a hammer, or a bat, or chops his head off with an axe, or strangles him with a chain, or poisons him with cyanide, or runs him over with a car, or drowns him in a pool, the PERPETRATOR is held responsible. But if a gun was used, the crime was apparently commited because he had a gun, not because he had evil intent or anything.
A gun does nothing with no one using it, empty, loaded, or sitting muzzle-down in a can of baked beans.
PS, one could pull a GTA using a car and kill/injure people by ramming them on the sidewalk much faster than aquiring and firing using a gun.
No one, not even insane liberal idiots, deny that the perpetrators is responsible when they use any object, including guns, to hurt people. However, guns are weapons, tools designed to hurt other people as effective/efficiently as possible. True a gun does nothing when nobody uses it. But neither do grenades, claymores, and nukes. Yet we keep those things out of the way of most people. (I'm pretty sure cyanide is illegal to buy). GTA is a poor comparison for the real world in this aspect.
Really, the problem IS people. Specifically, people who should not be owning efficient killing devices. The real goal is to keep guns away from them, so they cannot hurt others as easily. Banning guns outright may be overboard, but the intention is to prevent tragedy.
But the problem faced involving firearms in the US is that there's too many out there, legal or otherwise. (Not to mention the 2nd Amendment being a hinderance for politicians who want to do away with them.) Criminals and ill-intentioned people will find a way to get killing devices, whether it's knives, guns, poison, or otherwise, whether they're illegal or not. There's the black market as well, dudes selling full-auto MACs or AKs from the trunk of a car for mere hundreds of dollars a pop. Of course it's illegal on so many levels, but that doesn't stop them.
Plus I'm pretty sure criminals are not going to turn in their arms if all guns are outright banned. Any potential laws banning guns from private ownership do not do anything to get guns out of criminal hands. They only handicap those that obey the law. I personally want to be equally or better armed than anyone who tries to cause me harm, be it with a gun as well, a knife, a mace, or anything. Whoever is better armed controls the fight. Look at interviews of inmates jailed for burglary or robbery. Their number one fear is for their potential victim to be armed.
As for explosive/destructive devices, well, that's just silly to try to compare, because they aren't firearms (with a couple exceptions). Didn't stop McVeigh. Anyone with chemical knowledge can make HME, but it's not often anyone does.
As for the GTA thing, I said it could be done, not that it was likely. Though people killed in car accidents alone outweigh deaths with firearms of all sorts. (And the statistics don't show how many of those deaths were citizens protecting themselves, so that doesn't help either.)
Illegal black markets will always be there, but generally they are more inconvenient than the grey market, like gun shows and internet sites. Just because these markets can still be accessed, doesn't mean they shouldn't be made harder to get to. As for legal means, they should be made so normal citizens can get guns, but crazies will be turned away.
Materials for explosives are pretty closely monitored; buying too much of a material commonly used for bomb-making will alert authorities. In addition, the getting the knowledge and materials is inconvenient compared to obtaining a gun through the grey market.
Guns and gun ownership should be kept track of at least like cars. Need to show you're mentally capable and have the skills to use a gun properly for its purpose.
Gun shows and sites on the net still require going through background checks if it isn't a private sale. Dealers have to, by law, background check the buyer. With websites, they HAVE to ship to an FFL dealer, who conducts said background check. If it doesn't come back OK, they are legally denied the sale. If the FFL sells to them anyway, they are breaking the law, and risk losing their license.
I definitely agree that crazies shouldn't get ahold of guns, or anything that can be used as a weapon for that matter. But then comes, who's to say what is crazy; some will legitimately define it where someone is actually mentally unstable, while others will try to take it to the extreme and make a Catch 22 out of it (i.e. you must be paranoid because you want to buy a gun for self-defense, but if you don't feel like you need to buy a gun, then you're mentally stable).
While in some concepts, firearms registration is similar to a car registration, it is not completely comparable. You don't have to register your car, and you CAN drive on public roads with it if it isn't. You'll just get in HUGE trouble with the police and DMV. Also to note, your car is impounded (confiscated) AFTER you break certain laws.
I personally think the whole registration of firearms is pointless when it comes to preventing crimes. It only serves to show who has what and where they reside. If the owner suddenly decides to snap, the registration does not prevent him from doing so, nor does it stop him from carrying out an act of violence. It also does nothing to stop someone from stealing his firearm, which then is unaccounted for, and much easier to hide and harder to track down than a car.
It DOES however make it easier to confiscate arms from legal owners as people in charge see fit (such as Canada did for a couple decades, constantly changing what weapons could or couldn't be owned and confiscating them for no compensation, to my knowledge at least; I don't know too many Canadian gun owners). Basically they can say, "We know you haven't done anything wrong, and you might not have any intent to, but because you CAN, we're going to take these away." It's the equivalent of treating all males like sex offenders because they have penises. (A bit exagerated, I know, but best example I could pull out of my head at the moment.)
Either way, there's too many guns out there, legal or not, to be able to go through and register all of them. I personally will not support it, not only because it's pointless, but also because the hidden intent isn't to disarm criminals, it's to disarm average citizens. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was definitely not for hunting, but for the security of a free state, from enemies foreign and domestic alike. Anyone telling you otherwise is lying or misinformed. The government is to represent the people that elected them. When they fail at that, we vote someone else in. When they try to stay by force, that's when we are to fight back. (Look up the Battle of Athens, TN when you get the chance.)
On the level of stopping crimes, less "gun free zones" would be a start. This translates to "no one here is armed" to criminals. "Field day." "Easy pickin'." "No one can shoot back." Anything along those lines does increase likelyhood of being held up with any weapon, let alone a gun. Allowing conceal carry would help too (even with licenses). Potential robber in TX: "Anyone in this store could be armed… do I really want to take my chances over a couple hundred dollars?" Potential robber in NY: "CCWs are impossible to get here… and law enforcement is at least fifteen minutes away… good thing…" Conceal carry doesn't turn places into the wild west; just look at places that allow it. School shootings? It's been said for so long; train and arm teachers, principals, guards, police officers, anyone that works on campus. Not only does the knowledge of armed good guys discourage anyone who would rampage, but in the event that it does happen, it can be stopped right away, instead of having to wait for several minutes for police to come and stop the guy.
Sorry for the long reply, I just like discussions and rants.
I'm glad you agree about making it harder for "crazies" to get guns. I meant mental disease, criminal history, etc. But the Catch-22 situation is very unlikely, given likely public outrage against such a policy.
I think that registration, or some other policy, should be designed more to control the transfer/sale of weapons, rather than weapons that are in ownership. Indeed, what owners do with their weapons is hard to control, but cutting off ways for potential ill-intentioned owners to obtain guns is something that can and should be done.
"Hidden intent" sounds like paranoia. Sure, some people feel safer if nobody owned guns, but really, the intent is to stop bad guys from having them. The Battle of Athens was almost 60 years ago. Politicians will always try to screw people over, but this was an extreme case. Nowadays, armed siege is generally not the most prudent way to deal with political problems. The 2nd Amendment was created in a time when firearms couldn't kill 10+ people in seconds, and homes were threatened by Native Americans and wild animals, and reliance on militias for protection.
Gun-free zones do seem somewhat dumb. However, arming everybody isn't a great idea either. I would rather not have shootings resulting in firefights. There's definitely a solution for this too, but its beyond me.
nah its fine, I like it too. It's good to re-examine stances every once and a while.
"Evil people kill people with anything they can get their hands on."
Take away guns, and they'll break out the knives, grenades, poison, bare fists, water, carbon monoxide, hell f*ckin baseball bats.
Take away guns, and you tell me how many people in Detroit Michigan who AREN'T criminals are gonna have a backup defense.
Take away guns and you tell me how you're gonna defend yourself against a 7 foot muscle man who breaks into your house to rape and kill the wife and kids. Heck maybe even the man of the house.
Take away guns and you tell me how that's going to stop the illegal distribution of them.
Criminals will ALWAYS get their hands on their drugs and guns no matter HOW illegal they are. God you people and this argument are so ignorant to those who might feel a little safer in their home at night by having one. Sheesh.
There doesn't just exist two options: "banning guns outright" and "letting everyone have guns" The middle option "letting only people who will use guns properly obtain guns through legal and proper means"
The impression that gun control = banning guns entirely has prevented productive progress in preventing people who should be having guns from acquring them. Teenagers with mental disease can still easily buy firearms from gun shows or the internet with no background checks.
In addition, the possibility of people obtaining dangerous things illegally is no excuse to make them easier to obtain in general. For example, just because kids can get their hands on alcohol doesnt mean liquor stores shouldn't ask for IDs. Dealing the firearm black/grey market is legitimate thing that should be done.
Scenarios like the 7-foot muscle man are too idealized.
I recommend reading that link. Gun control allows criminals to feel more confident in their capabilities. Because, just like when alcohol was banned back during the Prohibition, people STILL participated in consuming it illegally.
If guns are limited, they will eventually be banned, which will lead to civilized people being killed faster than ever before.
That's a slippery slope if I ever heard one. Any gun control -> gun ban. It's like gay marriage -> ****ing with animals or taxes -> communism. Or a less extreme, driving licenses -> automobile ban. Your link still seems to mostly address outright bans or similiar policies.
Fear of outright bans should not keep people from working toward a solution that would make it harder for psychopathic nuts to get weapons, WHILE at the same time allowing normal citizens to obtain and own guns.
I don't know where you got the first part from, but I'll word this in a more simple way so you get it.
Stricter gun limitations have the potential to lead to an outright ban. I'm not saying that's EXACTLY what would happen, but there is a high chance. Especially when you live in a country with total marxist/socialist/communist leaders.
And last I checked, the liberals usually scream "OUTRIGHT BAN!!" I hear very few talk about finding a happy medium (which I'm all for.) My point, is that depending on "who's in charge" will affect the degree that the limitations are brought to.
And since it seems like you misunderstood me, I just said, that I'm all FOR preventing nutcases and underage idiots from getting weapons. All I WAS saying, is that the chances of guns becoming completely banned are higher if restrictions ARE enacted because of who is LEADING America.
I must applaud you though. Usually in these types of debates, lunatics ramble on nonsensically about how "evil" guns are. Yeah. When the Saudi Arabia wackos come to kill us all, I'll let you stand on the front lines with your "peace talks." We'll see how far that gets ya.
Glad we can agree. Luckily, the US isn't completely corrupt, and still has semblance of democracy. It's doubtful a communist would get elected, and if he did and tried something like sweeping gun bans, he'll meet really heavy opposition. Checks and balances, America, fuck yeah...sort of. I think some reasonable policy will be passed....eventually.
C'mon, Saudi Arabia, of all countries? At least be more realistic and say Uzbekistan or New Zealand. I'm sure those fuckers hate us.
Do not judge the individual by the many, nor should you judge the many by the individual. Each person is responsible for their own choices, therefore we should only judge the individual by his own merit. Humanity is not, on the whole, evil. there are only some who decide to do evil only to further their own goals. Hate begets more hatred, thus love begets more love.
Choose to love others as you would love yourself, and the world just might end up a better place...
Problem I saw was never whether people with guns kill, but who was carrying them, and who gets killed. Interesting statistic: The average number of deaths in a shooting stopped by the police:13 The average number of deaths in a shooting stopped by an armed Civilian:3
I consider myself to be both pro-gun and pro-gun control. I just wish the arguments for BOTH sides weren't so childish.
If we *America* are going to go through with Gun Control, there are better ways than bans and national registries. But if we really wanted too we could outlaw all firearms, we simply need to be ready for the fallout that would occur afterwards.
Until we can make up our minds, I'll keep a-hold of my firearms, and keep teaching people about firearm safety.
Heh. I do like the hysteria-generating US news clip. "For the first time ever, 'Bobbies' are carrying firearms." Starting with the Metropolitan Police back in 1829, they've always had access to firearms, though they were never issued except under extreme circumstances. From 1948 onwards, there have always been armed police on patrol. There presence was actually reigned in from 1970, and brought under further control in 1991, with armed response units only patrolling key areas or awaiting rapid deployment. There are guns in Britain, but the penalties for being caught with one make it less likely for them to be carried. The “body armour” the ever-misleading news-clip mentions is a stab-proof vest, not bullet-proof armour. Knife-crime is way higher than gun-crime.
a gun is a tool. people abuse tools. from waving a stick around at brother Abel just because Cain was angry with him, to whole super powers (technically, but not really including north Korea..) threatening each other with nukes. it is strange, all this has happened before, and will happen again. but i have yet to see people be grossly irresponsible and plainly stupid with portable microwave generators.... (i mean Lasers.)
I agree Jolly Jack It is a poor argument. Even though I defend The Bill of Rights, constitution, and Civil Liberty to my dying breath, the single phrase argument "Guns don't kill people, people do" is ineffective in the manner it's normally used.
The statement should be used as a reminder that it's the person behind the gun that's the killer not the tool that they use. Most of the Anti-Firearms lobbyist and public speakers all to often try to divorce the killer from his tool and present the tool as the sole means of the tragedy.
I agree, people kill people, thatīs why guns should be allowed to own guns, but people shoudnīt be allowed to have them, because they would use them to kill people.
If there was a sure way to distinguish between the killers and the "gun enthusiasts who wouldn NEVER, EVER kill somebody" I would be in favor of giving guns to them... but sadly there is no way, and I donīt very much care for taking that risk, thank you!
This remains the largest shooting spree to date, in a country with anti-gun laws as strong as GBs. [link] Second Largest shooting spree: another nation with strong anti-gun laws: [link] This is the third largest spree, in another country with strong anti-gun laws: [link]
So tell me, how're those anti-gun laws doing for you?
Both countries allow civilian gun ownership under strict regulation. To the best of my knowledge neither has any sort of public carry laws regarding private owners - so leave home at your own risk. Many countries allow gun ownership under some sort of regulation. According to the research I had done both countries have stricter regulations than most other countries. It didn't help. Australia HAD very strict gun control laws BEFORE the incident - they chose to believe that stricter laws would improve the situation. Time will tell.
The Norwegian shooter said he'd made arrangements to go to Prague to get weapons because he believed it would be too hard in Norway, then ended up having to settle for what he could get at home. [link]
The South Korean shooter was a POLICE OFFICER, not a civilian gun owner. He was supposed to be the first line of defense against such a crime, yet even his fellow officers failed to take the situation seriously and several of them including the provincial head were fired for dereliction of duty. [link]
If removing guns from the world would remove violence, I'd be all for it, but stories like this - [link] - help to prove that guns don't make people violent. Violent people are violent irregardless of the weapons they have access to. There are very good reasons why every major shooting spree takes place in "gun-free zones" and similar places where civilians aren't allowed carry permits - the shooters don't want anyone shooting back.
[link] - your own country isn't even safe from this sort of violence. What are your countries gun laws like?
I shall make my apologies to you, you HAD done your research. I merely misunderstood that your point was that those laws where on carrying those guns in public.
But as you allready pointed out, A. Beivik (from the Norway shootings) had obtained his weaponry legally. I don't know the Norwegeon laws on gun control by heart, so I don't know if he was allowed to carry those guns in public, but as long as he was allowed to get his hands on them, he was able to use them. Guns CAN be hidden from the prying eyes of the law. And even if not, as long as one can own a gun, one can start the killing spree on their own porch.
The south korean shooter is a sad one indeed, being a police officer. But as I've said to many Americans claiming they don't trust the police to be the only ones carrying guns; it's essential to screen every person properly. In my country, there are high standards for becomming a police officer, both physicly and mentally. But as allready said about Woo Bum-kon [link] , he had an inferiority complex. The very reason for a person to start a killing spree like that, is mental health. The most suicidal sprees (and that's not only with guns) come from countries where both freedom and mental health care are low. This does mean that America does indeed not hold the top when it comes to killing sprees. But America gets close because they have 2 of the 3 golden ingredients; low gun control and low mental health care. It's a good thing you people still have freedom.
And no, as JollyJack's argument will tell you, banning guns will not stop voilence. I only highly reduces the amount of damage it can do. People will always be voilent and will always find a way to kill each other. But as the most ideal ways are taken away, the more people will survive murder attempts. A knife can still be ran away from. Also, I would not put much faith in political writers of stories. Best to stick to the facts, not other people's opinions. Especially seeing as Daniel Greenfield, the writer of [link] , has not sticked to the facts on the result of the UK's gun control; [link]
And then finally the bit about Alphen aan de Rijn. I remember that one very clearly, especially since it was unheard of in my country. We do have decent gun control laws here, and that was the biggest killing spree we ever had. 6 people. Want to know the result? The board that allowed van der Vlis to get the guns he used (he had them "legally"), where fired, and by many people held partically responsible. It turns out they had ignored a bad result from a psychological exam. I hope the newly appointed board will take their job more seriously.
In any case, anyone in my country holding a gun licence is psychologically screened each time they have to renew their licence. A bad result means losing your licence.
(I don't own a gun licence though, so I could very well be legally insane I don't get screened every now and then)
But as the most ideal ways are taken away, the more people will survive murder attempts. A knife can still be ran away from.
It will probably always be legal to buy ammonia fertilizer and Diesel oil, and a bomb cannot be easily run away from. Even if restrictions are placed on ammonia fertilizer and Diesel oil, there's still bacon fat and piss.
And most bombs set in civilian areas are diffused before they go off. By proffessionals. It's the proffessionals such as these that should bare arms to defend criminals. People who have been screened, proven to be sane. People who are constandly trained to handle these situations as they should be. Not every trigger-happy half-wit that wants a gun. (excuse my language)
But this thread's not being talked on for ages, I thought all the discussing the matter was done because this is a delicate matter with 2 equally important sides/points of view. Which is exactly why people vote for this sort of thing... to see which side carries the most support...
off course, discussing is a good way to see new perspectives... but the internet does not prove itself the right place for such discussions... I think
And most bombs set in civilian areas are diffused before they go off. By proffessionals.
They have to find them first.
It's the proffessionals such as these that should bare arms to defend criminals. People who have been screened, proven to be sane. People who are constandly trained to handle these situations as they should be.
Qui custodiet ipsos custodes? Who screens them, and to do what to whom? Allowing only those authorized to protect society to bear arms really worked well in Germany in the '30s and '40s, didn't it?
And so far, most of the times they did, in well protected countries.
Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?
Is this spanish? I don't speak it.
Allowing only those authorized to protect society to bear arms really worked well in Germany in the '30s and '40s, didn't it?
Let's start here by at first assuming you're right about the fact that everybody in charge is like Hitler and his coopertives. Did Hitler autherize only the police to handle weapons? No, he assigned them to his "special forces" (Nazi's) as well, who's job wasn't to protect, but to eliminate hostile political adversaries... and jews, homosexuals, etc. On top of that, everybody loyal to the political group of his was allowed to bear arms, even if they were citizens. As long as they swore loyal to Hitler, they were allowed to override any law, they were even allowed to murder if that was Hitler's wish. I think it's save to say anybody can see the signs of a dangerous dictator nowadays.
I mentioned the screening, proof of sanity and training not because I believe that is what's done in every country, but what I believe what should be done in every country, rather than giving every half-wit a gun. Whoever screens, autherizes and decides should be whoever the people have chosen to be in charge. The democratic system has it's flaws as well, I admit. But it's the closest so far to doing what's in everybody's intrest.
I see you're just inclinged to wanting this discussion, and I can't blame you; it's intresting. But I've gotten tired of talking on this delicate subject long before you joined in. Everybody has their own point of view and noone seems to want to look at it from any other perspective. It's no miracle this matter is growing out of proportion in a lot of countries.