 user created polls & quizzes |
If your intent is to go on a murderous rampage, you will find a way of getting a gun. Crap like this has nothing to do with gun control.
by ThisIsNate
[+]
Unfortunately it has EVERYTHING to do with gun control. It's not only an "easy of access" issue but one of promoting a violent culture in which gun ownership is seen as a basic human right (which it isn't). Denying that this is a Gun Control issue is to miss the point so badly that it's not even funny. Voted : Doesn't matter how many innocents die, gun law will never change Of course, this has everything to do with gun control. It's exactly what widehead said. I still disagree entirely. You're free to try and sway me.
by ThisIsNate
[+]
Promoting a violent culture??? You're not one of those ban video game nazis are you? Granted, I've never gone on a shooting spree. However, I disagree that it has anything at all to do with the alleged promotion of a violent culture. If you are so pissed off that you want to kill a mass of people, it's going to happen. You seem to be implying that our culture instills in these mass killers the desire to commit these attrocities. Correct me if I am mistaken.
by ThisIsNate
[+]
The culture allows this kind of tragedy to happen by giving the deranged relatively easy access to weapons and ammunition that are purely designed for killing others. Alongside this, the very idea of making gun ownership a 'right' instills the mistaken belief that possessing and using guns is justifiable. Imagine a situation where that person was intent on murdering as many people as he could without a gun or guns. He may kill some people but I absolutely guarantee he wouldn't have killed 32 people. There will be exceptions (like Michael Ryan and Thomas Hamilton in the UK who between them only killed one more than this latest nutcase) but change gun laws and the incidents that do happen will decrease. Firstly as a hunter I have to defend my arsenal. Yes, guns as well as many other things are designed to kill. They are, however, in no place in society marketed as human killing tools. The idea of using anything to kill a human comes strictly from a f-ed up mind. This brings me to a question I would like to pose for you (not to put you on the spot or anything): How do you propose we weed out that one in a million "nutcase?" Surely not by denying ownership to everyone?
by ThisIsNate
[+]
Voted : "From my cold, dead fingers..." etc. Call Charlton. "How do you propose we weed out that one in a million "nutcase?" Surely not by denying ownership to everyone?" No-one needs a gun. No-one needs to go hunting. Let's address this point clearly: It is not a basic human right to be able to own and use a gun. Make guns available and acceptable, and you'll continue to have tragedies like this. From the BBC: April 2007: A gunman shoots dead 32 people at the campus of Virginia Tech university in Virginia. October 2006: A 32-year-old gunman shoots dead at least five girls at an Amish school in Pennsylvania, before killing himself September 2006: Gunman in Colorado shoots and fatally wounds a teenage schoolgirl, then kills himself; two days later a teenager kills the headteacher of a school in Cazenovia, Wisconsin November 2005: Student in Tennessee shoots dead an assistant principal and wounds two other administrators March 2005: Minnesota schoolboy kills nine, then shoots himself May 2004: Four people injured in shooting at a school in Maryland Columbine school surveillance video The Columbine school killings led to calls for tighter gun controls April 2003: Teenager shoots dead head-teacher at a Pennsylvania school, then kills himself March 2001: Pupil opens fire at a school in California, killing two students February 2000: Six-year-old girl shot dead by classmate in Michigan November 1999: Thirteen-year-old girl shot dead by a classmate in New Mexico May 1999: Student injures six pupils in shoot-out in Georgia April 1999: Two teenagers shoot dead 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves at Columbine School in Colorado June 1998: Two adults hurt in shooting by teenage student at high school in Virginia May 1998: Fifteen-year-old boy shoots himself in the head after taking a girl hostage May 1998: Fifteen-year-old shoots dead two students in school cafeteria in Oregon April 1998: Fourteen-year-old shoots dead a teacher and wounds two students in Pennsylvania March 1998: Two boys, 11 and 13, kill four girls and a teacher in Arkansas December 1997: Fourteen-year-old boy kills three students in Kentucky October 1997: Sixteen-year-old boy stabs mother, then shoots dead two students at school in Mississippi, injuring several others 80 people killed in schools in 10 years. Is your hobby worth all this death? Happy hunting. Voted : Doesn't matter how many innocents die, gun law will never change Just registration, please. That way, I know whose houses to avoid in the future. Fine. Call it a "privilege" then. Even still, many millions of people have more than earned that privilege with respectful and responsible use as well as certification/safety courses. (p.s.- lol at my fast responses. Trying to do work but the university website has crashed.)
by ThisIsNate
[+]
ThisIsNate, are you happy that the shooter had absolutely no trouble getting a gun/s ...and the 100+ rounds of ammo? Isn't it quite sad that if, for example, a 14 year old decides to get a gun and shoot up his school he'll "find a way of getting a gun"? There are apparently around 300 million legaly owned guns in the US. How many people who own guns actually excercise their right to hunt and shoot targets? If tighter gun control laws stopped only 1 in 10 attrocities such as this wouldn't it still be worthwhile? p.p.s.- Step up school security.
by ThisIsNate
[+]
I was also slightly under the impression that WideHead was advocating the ban of private firearm ownership. Is this the case? Or are you merely asking for more strict licensing and such?
by ThisIsNate
[+]
Perfect world: Total ban Ideal compromise: Much tighter regulation Reality: Nothing will change Ideal compromise: Much tighter regulation Reality: Nothing will change ^ We can agree on that much.
by ThisIsNate
[+]
Voted : Doesn't matter how many innocents die, gun law will never change America created this monster (The right to bear arms) and it will be that very monster who will destroy American and America is almost to the destruction line (as in finish line)10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4... Correction: "who will destroy *America*... Voted : Doesn't matter how many innocents die, gun law will never change Perfect World: No need Ideal Compromise: Much stricter regulation Reality: Probably won't change Wow. That's a really easy way to put ideas into words. :P
by himself809
[+]
This is kind of off topic, but I thought it would make for interesting discussion. Seeing as alcohol is not a necessity (like guns) and is indirectly responsible through the hands of people for hundreds of preventable deaths each year (like guns), would you similarly say that alcohol would ideally be banned worldwide? So far as I can see, the case for a ban on either is identical: non-necessity, semi-controlled, indirect cause of preventable deaths, under current regulations each "cause" is available to anyone who truly wants it, etc?
by ThisIsNate
[+]
I have argued for a ban on alcohol before on B&W. It is totally and utter impossible to justify the sale and consumption of alcohol for recreation on ANY real basis and keep a straight face. Voted : Doesn't matter how many innocents die, gun law will never change I'm not sure what kind of gun was used at Virginia Tech, but semi-automatic guns should be banned. I believe it was a 9mm handgun.
by ThisIsNate
[+]
^ And you bring up a kind of weird point that makes some sense. Muzzleloaders only anyone? lol
by ThisIsNate
[+]
Widehead, supposing you're right, how would you go about confiscating all the guns from the American public? If you mandate that people to turn them in, only the law-abiding people will do so and then only the real scumbag criminals will have guns - ready willing and able to prey on the innocent, weaponless sitting ducks. PS - Your credibility is in question if you were serious about banning alcohol. Haven't you ever sucked down a Mai Tai in an exotic setting or guzzled a cold brew on a sweltering hot day? Voted : Doesn't matter how many innocents die, gun law will never change the very reasons gun control is needed (crazoids with access to guns) is the very reason everyone feels they need access to guns to defend themselves...or to go hunting and/or play "war" games...
by thesoothsayer
[+]
Whether I drink or not isn't the issue. I don't campaign for prohibition and neither do I tell people not to drink. You don't need a gun to kill people. Suicide bombers in Israel and Iraq are using other means to kill the innocent. Criminals in this country use guns regardless of the fact that the laws say those with felony records can't have them. I wish one of the other students had been packing and had the chance to take this b*stard down.
by VanHelsing
[+]
Bostonian, rather than attack the problem by attempting the impossible (banning all weapons in one go) a step-by-step tightening of regulations and laws over a period of many years would be necessary. A good place to start would be slamming hefty restrictions, penalties and taxes upon manufacturers and retailers of weapons and ammunition. Secondly (and this would be problematic) education the American people that it is not a basic right to own or use firearms would work wonders. By a constriction of regulations and laws combined with HUGE amounts of tax on deadly weapons we could remove the number of guns actually being sold. A total ban on ammunition (or by making ammo prohibitively expensive) would eventually remove the most lethal part of the gun/ammo combination from circulation! "You don't need a gun to kill people. Suicide bombers in Israel and Iraq are using other means to kill the innocent. Criminals in this country use guns regardless of the fact that the laws say those with felony records can't have them. I wish one of the other students had been packing and had the chance to take this b*stard down." This comment shows why the USA has a problem with guns. Why not wish that the guy only had a knife and was hit over the head with a chair or something? Why wish for MORE guns?! Jesus Christ, talk about missing the ENTIRE point. Comparing spree killers with politically motivated terror attacks is nonsensical. And to basically state that 'criminals break the law so why change them?' is a pointless and facile argument that holds no water whatsoever - if a criminal can't get hold of a gun who exactly is he going to shoot?! No guns = no death from guns. Certainly not using a tragedy such as this to bring forth your petty political agenda. If you think that THOUSANDS of unnecessary deaths every single are petty that's your particular bed to lie in. As someone who values human life I feel that it is at times like these the collective attention of a nation can be focused for good. The suicide bombers killing other muslims or jews because their religion is a little different are still murderers. Their difference in motive doesnt change the fact that they are finding other ways to kill people. When I say I wish one of the students had a gun I am thinking of how glad I was I had a gun when someone tried to jack my car. I was even more glad when I heard of another man who had gottne his car jacked and they found his body in the woods after. I have a permit and I think about that when I hear of these things. Good luck in getting these laws changed but how are we going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. They dont care about the law and will still get them even if they have to smuggle them into the country, but lawful people wanting to defend themselves wont. When something horrible like this happens we want to make big changes so go ahead and see what you can do.
by VanHelsing
[+]
Voted : "From my cold, dead fingers..." etc. The only thing that gun bans do is make it easier for criminals to threaten and kill innocent people. If the students had been armed, all of them, then the mad killer would've been shot dead the very first time he tried anything. (The suicide bombers killing - by VanHelsing on Tue Apr 17, 07 1:29am) It's a misconception to think that suicide bombers are always muslim. Most aren't. The Tamil Tigers are notorious for their use of suicide bombers. There was a mad shooter on the Virginia Tech campus back in 2002 as well, and he was stopped by other students who had guns. wideheadofknowledge has a funny way of ignoring history that doesn't fit his claims. Ms Khitai, if you'd taken the care to read any of my posts I not advocated a "defenceless in the face of armed criminals policy". I have stressed that a slow removal of available firearms and ammunition will limit the number of people who have access to deadly weaponry. Still, if you will have a fight-fire-with-fire attitude fingers will get burned. widehead I've forgotten if you're from Britain..? (just curious) P.S. I agree that we should criminalize the consumption of alcohol--speaking from the perspective of the States. If you're going to send someone to jail for eating a fucking mushroom then you can send someone to jail for doing alcohol. I have to agree with Nate, if a monster wants to go on a killing spree, he will find a weapon, legal or not, Hungerford and others in the UK are evidence of that. I AM against any tom, dick or Harry owning a gun though, these are lethal weapons when legally placed in the hands of idiots. (I have stressed that a slow removal of available firearms and ammunition will limit the number of people who have access to deadly weaponry by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Apr 17, 07 2:07am) Then only the crooks will have the guns. Crooks can always get weapons, and guns can also be home made, so how would intend stopping crooks from getting guns? They can make their own when desperate enough, and they'll smuggle them in as well. There are only two sides who benefit from tight weapons control; governments and criminals - never the people. If that's the case why isn't their a similar percentage of gun crimes in the UK carried out by the criminals who must surely be illegally importing them (according to you)? Again, I have mentioned that the problem is twofold. First, access to firearms allows people to get their hands on lethal weapons and secondly, the pro-gun culture sends a deadly message. That message is that owning guns is a basic right and using them is acceptable. Minx inadvertantly argues from my position by mentioning Hungerford. Michael Ryan legally owned all of the weapons he used to kill 15 people. The massacre led to much tighter restrictions on the ownership of guns. The same thing applies to Thomas Hamilton, murderer of 17. He used legally owned, licenced firearms and again this led to yet tighter restrictions. The fact that these are the ONLY spree shootings of note in the last 20 YEARS in the UK should be sign enough to all but the most obtuse observers. Update: Sun-Times Columnist Authorities were investigating whether the gunman who killed 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus in the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history was a Chinese man who arrived in the United States last year on a student visa. The 24-year-old man arrived in San Francisco on United Airlines on Aug. 7 on a visa issued in Shanghai, the source said. Investigators have not linked him to any terrorist groups, the source said. Police believe three bomb threats on the campus last week may have been attempts by the man to test the campus’ security response, the source said. The exits to the buildings where the shootings occurred were chained by the shooter, the source said. Voted : Doesn't matter how many innocents die, gun law will never change ^^^ Shhhhhh, Patch. They're trying their damndest to keep part that quiet. Anybody can get right off the boat and get access to firearms, student grants, health care. I hope to hell they didn't issue this guy a driver's license.
by _Beelzebubba
[+]
(If that's the case why isn't their a similar percentage of gun crimes in the UK by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Apr 17, 07 5:43am) Because culture has more to do with crimes and violence being committed than laws. Look at Switzerland for example. ( Michael Ryan legally owned all of the weapons he used to kill 15 people. The massacre led to much tighter restrictions on the ownership of guns. The same thing applies to Thomas Hamilton, murderer of 17. He used legally owned, licenced firearms and again this led to yet tighter restrictions. by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Apr 17, 07 5:43am) and none of those restrictions reduced criminal violence in the slightest. Instead the opposite happened and violence went up. If the victims of Michael Ryan had guns as well, he would've been the one to die, not most of them. Same for Thomas Hamilton. ( The fact that these are the ONLY spree shootings of note in the last 20 YEARS in the UK should be sign enough to all but the most obtuse observers. by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Apr 17, 07 5:43am) That's not a relevant claim because murder sprees were uncommon before anyway. How many were there in the UK in the previous 20 or 50 or 1000 years? Your argument reminds me of a Mulla Nasrudin joke - A man sees Mulla Nasrudin throwing seeds all over the town square and asks him, "Mulla Nasrudin, why are you throwing wheat seeds on the ground like that?" and Mulla Nasrudin replied, "To keep the tigers away." The other man commented, "But there are no tigers in Persia!" To which Mulla Nasrudin replied, "I know - effective isn't it?" wideheadofknowledge, gun related crimes in the UK have increased since the 1997 handgun ban. In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent. Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people. Cho Seung-Hui, 23 year old South Korean resident alien. A senior at VT majoring in English. It is also confirmed that the guns were a 9mm and a .22 and that the ballistics confirm that one of the guns was used in both shootings. Compairing rates between UK an USA can hardly be fair when the size of the UK is about the size of Florida alone. Who cares, let the stupid bastards wipe themselves out if that's what they want to do. Minx, size of population is taken into account when comparing percentages. Khitai - gun related crimes in the uk would have risen faster if the restrictions of 1988 had not been implemented. To suggest that allowing more people access to guns would have dropped the number of people killed by guns is bordering on insane. (Compairing rates between UK an USA can hardly be fair when the size of the UK is about the size of Florida alone. by minni_the_minx on Tue Apr 17, 07 12:23pm) It's a per capita crime rate comparison, I thought that was obvious. (Khitai - gun related crimes in the uk would have risen faster if the restrictions of 1988 had not been implemented. by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Apr 17, 07 2:05pm) I don't believe that because the reverse has been shown. The tighter gun laws have resulted in higher murder rates. (To suggest that allowing more people access to guns would have dropped the number of people killed by guns is bordering on insane. by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Apr 17, 07 2:05pm) That's a ridiculous claim too. I've already explained why, and the historical evidence showing a dramatic increase in the rates of gun related crimes committed after tighter gun control laws indicates that your claim isn't true. Daughter, ok, what do you suggest, then? Sorry, I was replying to this comment.... "The fact that these are the ONLY spree shootings of note in the last 20 YEARS in the UK should be sign enough to all but the most obtuse observers" I didnt really make that clear, appologies, and Im not against tighter controls, I just dont see how it is possible now in the US with so many weapons in circulation already. Voted : "From my cold, dead fingers..." etc. Great let's punish the entire country for the actions of one douche nozzle. If guns are banned people will just fashion their own, I know I will. (If guns are banned people will just fashion their own, I know I will. by lowerclassbrats on Tue Apr 17, 07 8:41pm) Its too easy these days to do that. That's just what happens. There are kids making zipguns in high school metal working classrooms in their free time, the "Saturday Night Special" in their garage. You can make a Sten gun from plumbing supplies. Also if guns are banned, the profits to made from smuggling them go sky high. After the Port Arthur massacre in the state of Tasmania in Australia, illegal handguns began being smuggled in huge amounts because they became extremely profitable. (Daughter, ok, what do you suggest, then? by aya on Tue Apr 17, 07 5:08pm) Do the same thing the Swedes did when they wanted to stop young people using drugs. They gave them a clear education in the exact effects, good and bad in detail. Im for the second amendment but I agree it was way too easy to get the gun. There should always be a waiting period, background check. He wasn't even a citizen so second amendment rights didn't even apply in Cho's case.
by VanHelsing
[+]
And what a surprise. Turns out Mr Cho purchased his firearms LEGALLY. So much for the criminal aquisition of illegal guns. Which doesn't change anything. If other students at Virginia Tech campus had guns, then Cho wouldn't have been able to kill 32 people because those other people could've defended themselves. Are you truly, truly arguing that a safer world would be one in which more people carried guns in public places?! Are you truly arguing that a safer world is one in which normal people are disarmed so that only the gangsters and govts have guns? Nobody can trust the police to be there on time to stop a mass shooting spree, and in the previous time when a man was planning to do that at Virginia Tech (back in 2002), he was stopped by students armed with guns. This time, the students and teachers had been disarmed because a of a gun ban at Virginia Tech. I'm sure that the number of sprees that MAY be stopped would pale into insignificance next to the more casually shot when tempers flared or when less force was more appropriate. Appalachian School of Law in January 2002. Three persons got killed before two ARMED students managed to subdue the aggressor and PREVENTED WORSE. There have been many occassions like that one. Anything bigger than a pistol should be banned and that includes machine pistols too, (but not weapons used for sport however, i.e. hunting rifles and shotguns). You really don't need to own assault rifles and SMG's over there, all you need is a small side arm for protection. wisehead is correct, you kinda dug your own grave by allowing firearms to be part of your culture. The constitution doesn't need abolishing, just altering to keep up with the times.
by spartan001
[+]
(I'm sure that the number of sprees that MAY be stopped would pale into insignificance next to the more casually shot when tempers flared or when less force was more appropriate. by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Apr 18, 07 6:24pm) maybe you're sure of that, but I'm not sure that what you say is right. You make a false comparison between something larger (murder sprees) and something smaller (single murders), and that's where your argument falls down. There have been many thousands of occassions where murders were prevented, armed robberies stopped, burglars scared off, all because their potential victims had a firearm to defend themselves with. Why is it that the UK has around 100 deaths per year from firearms whilst the USA has around 30,000? According to you criminals will get guns whatever and will deterred by other people who also have guns. So by your measure the UK should be overrun by gun weilding criminals having a field day because there's no one armed to deter them! There's a connection here between allowing people to own guns and people being shot. (Why is it that the UK has around 100 deaths per year from firearms whilst the USA has around 30,000? by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Apr 19, 07 11:19am) Because of culture, education, and economics of crime. These play a far bigger part than any laws. Where did you get that "30,000" figure from? In 2004 it was only 16,000 or so, only slightly more than the number of people killed by drunk drivers in the USA. Considering that your USA figures seem a bit unreliable, we'll have to see your source for the UK figures too. ( So by your measure the UK should be overrun by gun weilding criminals having a field day because there's no one armed to deter them! by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Apr 19, 07 11:19am) Which is exactly what has been happening in Sydney, Australia since the gun control laws were made stricter. A dramatic increase. What was the UK murder rate before the stricter gun laws were put in place? ( According to you criminals will get guns whatever by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Apr 19, 07 11:19am) They do. You know that fact already, so why are you trying to avoid it? Firearm deaths in the UK(From The Home Office Statistical Bulletin Feb 2007): 2006: 50 homicides 2005: 78 homicides 2004: 68 Homicides 2003: 81 Homicides 2002: 97 Homicides The fact that the USA has a rate of death by firearms that exceeds other Western nations by a factor of 8 should be a cause for concern. Finding a reliable number of deaths seems tricky to say the least by for the USA the total number of deaths (homicide, suicide, accidental) caused by guns is between 20,000 - 30,000 annually. Let's actually look at a real case study: Australia. After initiating some wide-ranging and ever-tightening restrictions on guns (after a spree killing in Tasmania in 1996) the country has witnesses a sharp and consistent decline in gun-related deaths - especially homicide. The buy-back policy of the government destroyed an estimated one seventh of the citizen-owned firearms in the country. So - tighter restrictions in this case did equate to a drop in homicides. Any thoughts? widehead, please look at the total homicide rates and rates of armed robbery after gun control laws are tightened. (tighter restrictions in this case did equate to a drop in homicides. by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Apr 19, 07 7:47pm) That's a false and highly misleading statement because you only showed the gun related homicides before making that claim, and yet ignored the fact that overall homicide rate was only slightly affected (it actually increased by 3.2% in the 12 months after the 1997 gun ban) because people will use any weapon they can when they want to kill somebody. After the 1996 Port Arthur massacre when Martin Bryant killed 35 people, the introduction of tight gun controls and removal of the law abiding public's guns in 1997 resulted in higher rates of violent crimes, armed robbery. While murder rates remained unchanged, armed robbery rates dramaticaly increased. Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there was a 44 percent increase in armed robberies; an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults; and, a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent. Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Overall, violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law went into effect, and were 59% higher over an 8 year period until 2004. Armed robbery rates increased 74%. In Sydney, handgun crime rose by 440 percent from 1995 to 2001. (these are according the Australian Federal govt). According to the International Crime Victimization Survey, Australia's violent crime rate is also now double that of the U.S. (according to the 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey) But it gets worse if you compare to the previous 25-year period, when Australia had shown a steady decrease both in homicide with firearms and armed robbery - until the 1997 gun ban. ( The fact that the USA has a rate of death by firearms that exceeds other Western nations by a factor of 8 should be a cause for concern by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Apr 19, 07 7:47pm) You mean in comparison to countries with different culture, different geographic situations, different legal systems, and different economic circumstances? You make a wide sweeping generalisation which is spurious when all these other factors are taken into account. "You mean in comparison to countries with different culture, different geographic situations, different legal systems, and different economic circumstances? You make a wide sweeping generalisation which is spurious when all these other factors are taken into account." by Daughter_of_Khitai Sure, just like you've done by using Japan, Australia and Hitler in your own arguments. Well done for the double standard. Ok then, let's just focus on America. Americans are raised to view ownership of guns as a civil right. They are fed a glorification of gun culture by their music, tv and movies. They espouse the ideal that only an armed populace can protected itself from armed civilians. Until you face the reality that people having guns means people will get shot - nothing will be done about the senseless waste of life every year. It's sad that Americans value their citizens so little. Shameful in fact. ( Until you face the reality that people having guns means people will get shot by wideheadofknowledge on Fri Apr 20, 07 1:55am) I already know this, and you are dancing around with distortions of what I have said - but when are you going to admit that increased gun control only increases rates of violent crime. The statistics prove it. If the problem with the USA is cultural violence, taking away guns from the law abiding public will only make them more defenceless against criminals - because gangsters and crooks don't abid by the law, and they can always find ways to obtain guns. ( It's sad that Americans value their citizens so little. Shameful in fact. by wideheadofknowledge on Fri Apr 20, 07 1:55am) If you valued people's lives more, you wouldn't be arguing for taking away their defence from criminals. The police rarely arrive on time to stop a crime, they usually arrive afterwards to take their notes and clean up the mess, but by that time it's too late. Criminals who already ignore the laws aren't going to be intimidated or deterred from committing violent crimes against the law abiding public just because guns become more illegal, as they'll just obtain their guns illegally anyway. Laws don't matter to them. It's the law abiding public who become defenceless instead. An armed robber would worry about a home owner having a gun, but if he knew that none of the home owners had guns, then he'd be less deterred from armed robbery. When the potential victims are rendered defenceless, it's the crooks and gangsters that benefit. ( Sure, just like you've done by using Japan, Australia and Hitler in your own arguments. Well done for the double standard. by wideheadofknowledge on Fri Apr 20, 07 1:55am) There is no double standard, and if you have a problem with my bringing real facts and statistics into debate that counter your claims, then admit you are wrong. I also mentioned Sweden and Switzerland and the UK in my arguments too. Apparently you are confusing me with someone else. Wakey, wakey, widehead - I know what you're trying to imply but that it's easy to see that you only resort to such a tactic because you aren't doing very well in debate against the real facts that I have mentioned. ( Ok then, let's just focus on America. by wideheadofknowledge on Fri Apr 20, 07 1:55am) Why? Because you couldn't win the debate with your over generalised and wide sweeping claims about the Australian experience? If we look at the results of increasing gun control in the USA, there's Virginia Tech where the campus administration had introduced a gun ban - which allowed a drug crazed psycho high on Prozac to have an easy time slaughtering students and teachers because none of his victims had a gun to shoot back with. The teachers and other students at the campus were obedient to the gun ban, but as expected, the criminal psycho killer wasn't intimidated by a "gun ban" and of course he wasn't going to obey it. ( According to you criminals will get guns whatever by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Apr 19, 07 11:19am) As I mentioned before, they can and do. Here's very recent example from just a few days ago. "Arrested convenience store robber accused of manufacturing own gun" Mainichi Daily News (mainichi shimbun) 21 April 2007 ISESAKI, Gunma -- A man under arrest for robbing several convenience stores has been hit with a new arrest warrant for illegally manufacturing a gun, police said. Hiroki Kato, 56, the owner of a steelworks in Isesaki, admitted to the allegations during questioning. "I wanted to produce a gun on my own," he was quoted as telling investigators. Kato manufactured the .38-caliber pistol at his steelworks sometime around June 2005, without permission from the government, Gunma Prefectural Police investigators said. In September last year, Kato was arrested for robbing a convenience store in Ota, Gunma Prefecture and subsequently hit with new arrest warrants for his involvement in several other convenience store robberies. Police confiscated another gun from an acquaintance of Kato, who admitted to having received the weapon from Kato in return for waiving his debts. (Mainichi) Whatever. You win. Guns are good. No guns aren't good, but taking them away has proven statistically worse for controlling crime. Sure. I mean the fact that rising crime rate may be rising anyway has nothing to do with it. What if tighter restrictions actually slow down rising crime rates? I think that we kind of agree on the important issue - a change in awareness and education is the key. (Sure. I mean the fact that rising crime rate may be rising anyway has nothing to do with it. by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Apr 23, 07 9:27pm ) That's a very weak argument. In the case of Australia, for decades, the crime rates were steadily dropping - until the new gun laws were imposed, then suddenly they rose dramatically. (What if tighter restrictions actually slow down rising crime rates? by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Apr 23, 07 9:27pm) That's a weak argument too because the real statistics show that the reverse happens and crime rates go up. (I think that we kind of agree on the important issue - a change in awareness and education is the key. by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Apr 23, 07 9:27pm) So far that's the only point we agree on. I believe the factor of education is one of the most important, along with economics (because poverty often results in higher crime as people become desperate). Culture is also a major factor. I mentioned Sweden's education against drugs by their going into detail on the drug effects, effectively taking away the thrill of an illicit pursuit by making it boring. Maybe the same can be done with guns. I agree with virtually everything you said 'DoK'. "I agree with virtually everything you said 'DoK'." That's because you're a moron. Voted : "From my cold, dead fingers..." etc. Gun control will not stop criminals from having guns. It will only take them from the hands of law-abiding citizens who will then have no means to defend themselves from people with guns. I know this sounds right-wing, but would-be shooters aren't just going to throw up their hands and say "Oh, guns are ILLEGAL! We have to stop using them!" If that were the case, there would be no problem with drugs in this country either. After all, they are illegal too. Voted : "From my cold, dead fingers..." etc. Some people in denial on here. If you can't get round the fact that typical criminals get their guns illegally, then you're dense. Think about it, and while you're doing that, think also about the gun laws in the safest and most dangerous parts of the states and how they differ. Firearm Homicides Dunblane onwards: 1996: 47 1997: 58 1997/98: 52 1998/99: 46 1999/00: 61 2000/01: 72 2001/02: 97 2002/03: 75 2003/04: 68 2004/05: 75 2005/06: 50
|