Question for people Pro-guns....

[Grape_Bullion]

There's never been a scenario where firearms have been outright illegal to own in the US, obviously no data exists to show how crime would be affected if it were illegal to own a weapon. The point I was trying to get across is, in my opinion, if one person isn't capable of properly using a gun, then why should anyone have them?

 

[Nikolaz72]

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Captcha: hunky-dory

I <3 Captcha's irony.

That's kinda WHY we have the 2nd Amendment. An Armed population exists to protect against the threat of military or governmental take over of the country (Keep in mind that, its really not uncommon for a military to take over a country that had recently gone through a revolution. Just look at Egypt)

What a lot of non-U.S. posters don't understand is that we cannot make firearms illegal. It is almost impossible for us to do so. We have a federal amendment in the bill of rights (2nd Amendment:Right to bear arms) and for those of you who don't know what the bill of rights is, its essentially the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights was created because anti-federalists (Those who opposed the drafting of the Constitution because they felt it gave the Federal Government too much power) pretty much demanded it before they would vote and pass the whole constitution (Which included the Branches of government and how the process would work.) We cannot repeal amendments. We can only add in another Amendment that repeals the previous one (For example, the 21st Amendment repealed 18th Amendment) and it requires a CRAZY AMOUNT of support to pass. It would be impossible to get all the support needed to stop the 2nd Amendment, let alone one attached to such an early document of the US. So for those of you preaching for making gun ownership in the US illegal, just stop. Its not gonna happen with the way the US government works right now and if it does happen, its gonna be because we decided to stop using the Constitution, and given how many people cling to that thing likes its their mother's tit, its not gonna happen for several generations.

So can we stop beating the dead horse?

The 2nd Ammendment grants the right for Militia to bear arms (As far as I recall) Plenty of European nations have militia's that can own firearms. Just that the US court at some point interpretated Militia as Everyone living in the country.

 

[Nikolaz72]

I'd prefer it if it was harder to get a gun.

Then everyone and their mother wouldn't become a mercenary that thinks that they can take on people like me, a trained, card carrying galaxy saver.

Im starting to see why all the human mercs in the galaxy speak with American accents.

 

[Tsukuyomi]

Why would it be a bad thing to outlaw private gun-ownership? Well, speaking as someone who is new to gun-ownership here in the states (I've probably been shooting about a year now or less, not entirely sure.) I can think of a few reasons that the...I tend to call them 'extremists'....would give you.

1: "Well if you don't have a proper firearm what if a crazed PCP-Addict busts into your home and threatens your family?!"

I have actually heard this offered up as a serious question in a debate about caliber. The man in question was dead-set that anything below a .40 S&W was just not worth it for self/home defense. There's a lot of them out there here in the states. Many of them old and white and racist/homophobic to varying degrees. I get what he's saying, but also, honestly speaking, unless you live in an area where such a thing is more likely to happen, that's probably a one-in-a-million chance. To me it's just an excuse to have a bigger gun around the house and whatnot.

2: "Well if we don't have guns, how are we gonna defend our freedom from *insert today's social or political or ideological devil here*?!"

Many a crack is made, covertly, against President Obama, Hilary Clinton, and other proponents of gun-restriction. Oftentimes the word Communist is thrown around, along with various slurs and derogatory remarks and doom-predictions about what would happen if they 'won' and took away our precious guns. This is basically a load of garbage and like the first argument it's a sign of fear and misunderstanding. However there may be historical precedent that a populace with little to no means of defending itself is easily rolled over by dictators and despots. Largely though, this I think is a factor of American upbringing. Look at Extra Credits' 'The Myth of the Gun' if you don't really get what I mean. We are indeed still enraptured with the idea of the Citizen Soldier. And as I recall the reputation does work in our favor sometimes. If I remember correctly (someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here), either during or after World War II, the Japanese Emperor at the time was talking about the war and he stated in pretty clear terms that he wouldn't have dreamed of attempting to take over America. When asked why his answer was something to the effect of: "There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

I suppose I could think of other arguments I've heard but suffice it to say they're mostly going to be stuff like the above two. Neither of which I particularly agree with.

----------------------------

For my own logic though? Well...I suppose self-defense is a small part of it, though I don't openly carry. I see the logic in it, however. Someone once pointed out that the Wild West was a very polite place, mostly because you were always very aware of the consequences of pissing someone off, as those consequences hung from an openly-seen holster. Barbaric? Yes. But there are some people in life who don't understand anything but barbarism. You can talk to them all day until your face turns blue but they simply won't learn anything until you apply force and/or pain. It's a sad fact of life, and it shouldn't have to be, and I'd like to see a day where those types of people don't exist, but I think it will likely always be a part of life.

I originally only wanted to learn how to handle a gun. I didn't want to own one, really. Conceal-Carry laws had just passed in my neck of the woods and after long periods of thought I came to the conclusion that I simply wanted to be prepared. It may be a one-in-a-million chance that I need to pick up someone's firearm and use it for the defense of myself or others, but however long the odds, if it ever came, I wanted to be sure I could use it safely and not hurt anyone who didn't need to be, including but not limited to myself.

My first experience at a range was...both lackluster and eye-opening. I wasn't totally enraptured the first moment I pulled the trigger on my family's old hunting-rifle, but actually experiencing it for myself dissolved many of my preconceptions from movies, television, and games. Even now, I find my perceptions of the shooting world changing every time I meet new people and handle new hardware. For example many competition shooters I've met stand by SIG Sauer, a German manufacturer known for top-end handguns and impeccable quality and visual design. My own experience with a Sig? Not bad, but rather lackluster.

The same goes for the infamous Glock. Interesting though it is to have a probably 90% composite gun, and it does work, I was not tremendously impressed. It put holes where I wanted them on the target, but I had more than one issue with reliability.

In part I think delving into a world that's so simultaneously hyped and reviled is part of the enjoyment for me. While there is a certain amount of Republican rhetoric and the stereotypical 'redneck gun-nut' business, for the most part it's not all that bad. The people who are there are simply there because they either enjoy shooting like anyone else enjoys a sport, (yes, I know it can be debated on if it's a sport or not) or, like me, they're trying to dispel the myths and preconceptions that the world feeds them. You meet many kinds of people, and while guns are obviously a prime factor at any range, safety and safe-use are glorified. These are not people who just wanna blow stuff up indiscriminately. They are keenly aware of the deadly potential of these items and they treat them with the appropriate amount of respect and caution they require.

Finally for me I think the biggest reason I have them and enjoy them is the incredible science and workmanship that goes into them. I'm consistently surprised as I learn more about certain weapons like the Colt 1911, the amount of science and sheer cleverness that goes into their design and execution. More and more it's occurred to me that these items represent what may perhaps be Man's longest-lasting legacy on earth: the ability to kill other creatures and each other. Grim though that is, it's the one thing we've pursued down to a science and a fine art. Hopefully in the future our positive achievements will easily eclipse it, but while we approach that, I look forward to seeing what kind of ingenuity and thought is put into these devices to advance them.

Do I see where they are bad and possibly horrible things? Of course. I was raised to believe they were everything wrong with the world. As you can tell I've changed those views somewhat, but I understand the misgivings others have. Should they be outlawed because singular people use them irresponsibly and for horrible, terrible ends? That's too big of a question for me to answer, as I don't have enough facts to make a reasonable one, but I don't really think so. Crazy people are going to be crazy people. A Gun is a hunk of metal, ceramic, and plastic. It has no brain. When someone points one at you, it's nothing personal on the gun's end. It's completely personal on the end of the guy who's holding it.

 

[marche45]

Because Americans suddenly become stupid the instant someone utters the word "freedom".

Seriously, in my experience, Americans will defend and protect almost anything no matter how dangerous, ridiculous, or unfair it is simply on the grounds of "we're the land of the free and people must have the right to do x/y/z".

Rational argument, decades worth of statistics and common sense have minimal relevance.

Did you actually stop to read some of the posts in this thread?
They were actually well thought out.

"Well thought out" does not equal "objectively correct". People can think and argue all they like, but if they refuse to consider perspectives and statistics which contradict their opinion, they're essentially acting as their own echo chamber rather than actually engaging in an informed debate. Notably both the "pro" and "contra" gun camps do this.

My initial post was tantamount to saying that there is minimal correlation between how much people think about these things and how correct they actually are. People have firm opinions on such issues and aren't willing to deviate (regardless of whether or not doing so would be in their best interests).

Proof-reading this post I feel like a character out of Aaron Sorkin's "Newsroom".
Fuck.
Disregard everything I said

While i would argue this is true about pretty much ANY argument people have,i would like to point out people have actually been pulling out statistics.

 

[jakeblues69]

I live in America and I've never heard a gunshot, hell the only time I've ever seen a gun was on a police officers hip.

It's not about making guns illegal, before you know it the government will start making sharp knives illegal, it's about making sure only certain people can get them. In my state (New Jersey) it's nearly impossible for people to get their hands on one, if you have a criminal record they wont even consider approving you, that's how it should be in my opinion.

We're not children who need the government to tell us what we can and can't do.

I actually left NJ ( and refuse to go back, even to visit ) when Jim Florio put the assault weapons ban in place. With the stroke of a pen, he made me and everyone else who legally purchased any assault weapons, a felon. And of course, how can I almost forget Christie Todd Whitman, who in her campaign, said she would repeal the ban, then after she was elected, didn't. Because of this I try to make sure NJ doesn't see a dime of my money in any way, shape or form. Yeah, I hold a grudge.

 

[Heinrich843]

I'll put it simply and we'll try to stay as simple as possible with this. They're two systems of dealing with guns. They're two separate theories.

Okay. Guns aren't necessary. We'll get that right out of the way to begin with. The problem is that you just can't remove them all, they still drift into the UK despite strict gun laws. The technology and material to make them still exists, as well as illegal imports. (I'd link to the post of a student buying a sub-machine gun for 200 pounds, but you get the point.) I could also tell you how to make zip gun, but I believe that's illegal.

The philosophy of the United States is that the police cannot be everywhere at anytime, criminals will continue to get guns, civilians without guns means only criminals with guns, individual gun freedoms, etc.

Gun crime tends to be higher as a result (despite background checks and waiting periods), and occasionally some downtrodden individual(or just with serious mental health issues) kills a bunch of innocent people that had nothing to do with their issues.

The bigger issue is crime rates and violent crime. When you remove guns, that gun crime turns into other violent crimes.

What we really need instead of gun debates:

Better mental health care for our communities, more social awareness of dangerous behavior, and more social supportive communities to prevent crime in the first place.

As long as we keep avoiding the root cause of the problem, those knives, guns, blunt objects and whatever have you will keep finding their way into troubled individual's hands. I'd like to live in a society where responsible, mature adults can own dangerous things because they're intelligent and wise enough to use them responsibly. (Like cars)

 

[Heinrich843]

The 2nd Ammendment grants the right for Militia to bear arms (As far as I recall) Plenty of European nations have militia's that can own firearms. Just that the US court at some point interpretated Militia as Everyone living in the country.

Well, to be specific- due to issues of actual implementation of the 2nd Amendment word for word- ~1790 or so, congress declared most of the male population as the militia due to a lack of standing army. (Similar to countries that call upon able bodies to fill the ranks of their military, but this would be in a citizen-soldier capacity.)

 

[Conn1496]

Because there's a difference between "crime" and "gun crime", and they respond in opposite ways to gun laws.

Basically, for every person that you spare from death by bullet wound, you're getting a mugging, a rape, and two deaths by knife wound in return.

We're just better at math than you are.

Your logic is just wonderful. :| Not. I think many people commit gun crime because guns appeal to them as "cool", not because they want to break the law. Your comment about "We're just better at math." doesn't make much sense either, and is frankly pretty prejudiced. It's people like you that are actually not helping American stereotypes, so why don't you do your country a real favour, and stay quiet.

In all fairness though, while I'm not pro-gun, they're no more dangerous than knifes really, and if people want to own them, so be it. I don't mind people having guns for recreational or defensive purposes, but there should be guidelines in place to increase gun safety measures... and yes, I live in the UK.

 

[Schtoobs]

I'd like to have a say if I may (UK-based btw).If alot of law abiding citizens carry guns then the criminals must, at least, carry guns to be successful. Guns being legal means more guns available to criminals. Criminals will get guns anyway, this is true. The main benefit of criminalizing guns, I think, would be the reduction in shootings that occur in the heat of the moment. Gun-carrying person who generally doesn't break laws kills someone in a moment of madness because the gun was readily available, two lives ruined. Maybe it wouldnt have happened if the person had time to think or cool down. Also, the fact that anyone could be 'packing heat' is incentive for criminals to shoot first and ask for your wallet later. Murder instead of mugging.

This isn't a simple topic at all (crime is probably just a part of it) but the guns reduce crime argument is tosh. Swapping a victims stolen wallet for a muggers trip to the morgue is not a good deal.

That being said, removing guns from a country that is used to having them would be impossible. I wish people would stop excusing it or defending it though. Have one to defend yourself, by all means. But don't say that it's a good thing that lots of people own and carry firearms. At best it's a necessary evil. I'd like to hear people say "I own a gun, but I hate the fact that I feel I need to".

In the end it comes down to minimizing the amount of people that get shot. Reducing the number of guns and bullets available does this. But with so many in circulation this just isn't a possibility. So basically America... you're fucked on this one Try not to die please. *high fives all Americans*

 

[Emperor Nat]

Also... it is worth baring in mind just how big America is in comparison to the UK.
I'm anti-guns as I live in the UK and we function fine without them but sometimes comparing crime rate with the UK is a little useless. We can fit three of us in just one of their states.

That's under-estimating a little. You can fit the majority of the middle-east inside of Texas.

OT: I understand both sides of the argument. I'm English, and have never seen anyone with a gun in my life who didn't have a snazzy blue uniform on - so I feel fairly safe in that respect. Then again, if a man was in my house attempting to hurt me, I'd much prefer to defend myself with a gun rather than a knife or blunt household object.

 

[fletch_talon]

Uh, eradicating a pest will lead to less economic losses (less damage done to crops by eating/treading on young plants etc), so money would actually be on the line.. And wild animals can be aggressive if you're sharing their territory..

oney is on the line for farmers and safety is a potential issue for people who live and work in remote rural areas, farmers especially are the people who are hunting the animals for the reasons you mentioned.
People in more established and urban areas who aren't in direct conflict with wild pigs and other pests aren't as interested in their eradication. They aren't interested in purchasing a gun and hunting pigs.

Do you know how many people in my town like hunting? Do you know how many people who do not like hunting do it anyway because it is necessary for their survival? That was my point. It is not about liking hunting, it is about survival.

So are you suggesting people be forced to hunt pigs?
The majority of people don't want to hunt pigs, the majority of people are disconnected from the problem and don't care enough to do what is necessary. Especially since their survival is not what's at risk, its the survival of rural farms and communities and the environment. All things that the average joe notoriously lacks concern for.

Oh and please do keep on ignoring the cultural differences between our countries.

Like what exactly?

So we've been discussing it the whole time and you still remain ignorant?
There is a sever lack of interest in hunting, whether for sport, food or pest eradication. America is known for having hunting and the right to bear arms being ingrained into its culture.

Making more powerful weapons readily accessible in this country is not going to magically make people aware of the problem and want to help out.

If you want to argue that awareness of the issue needs to be raised, or that incentive needs to be offered to promote participation in the solution, I won't argue with you. But the fact that pig hunting exists here is proof that they have the equipment, the lack of numbers being killed could be attributed to a number of factors, the only one that we can confirm (which come from a source you provided might I add) is the geography of our country making it difficult.

But no, all you can go on about is how we don't use the same guns you do and you cling to that idea as if it is the one and only possible truth.

Or is it because I do not like the fact that y?all are letting your animal population get out of control? Sorry, but I view it as a bad thing. If you like it then you can stew in it, just do not ask me to join you.

No I'd have to say its got a lot to do with you being ignorant and elitist.
Plus I don't appreciate being told (presumably) with a straight face that my country isn't as good as yours because we don't think the general public should have an easy time getting hold of what is classed as a "battle rifle" which shoots 700 rounds per minute (assuming I'm looking at the correct firearm). Are there worse guns out there? Of course but a line has to be drawn somewhere.
I could easily say that whilst we are "fucking up our country" with feral animals you are fucking up yours with gun crime.
But as I've already said, I recognise where you don't that our ability to have a lightly armed society, like your ability to deal with feral pigs is due to a difference in culture and geography and its not as simple a solution as removing/loosening gun restrictions.

Yeah, cuz accusing the other guy of fondling his AR-10 isn't biased at all. Don't call people out on bias when your entire argument is based on bias. People in glass houses and all that.

You really haven't been reading much of our exchange have you?
So my argument, which has already acceded the fact that America can not as it currently stands function under the same kind of restrictions that we have here, is biased?
No, unlike Farson, I acknowledge that what works for my country doesn't necessarily apply to his. On the other hand, Farson has consistently ignored any and all differences between his country and my own, instead insisting, in spite of all provided rebuttal, that Australia's problems would be solved by Americanising our gun laws.

The gun fondling comment was (as Farson has acknowledged) unveiled condescension, rather than bias. I try to remain sensible here, but when arguing with someone who ends their post with a well worded alternative to "my nation is better than yours" I'd hope people could forgive me for letting a relatively minor insult slip.

Congratulations, you threw out all credibility you may have had.

You can't say "leave this conversation" because you don't like their preconceived notions. That makes you worse than any inflammatory commenter.

Not hard to see which side you're on eh? Presumably you've followed the entire debate between myself and Farson and this is the part you choose to comment on?
And you don't happen to think that my oh so flawless and noble opponent lost credibility with the remark:

"Just, do not say that we have to sacrifice ourselves to live down to your [Australia's] expectations."

Because this shows no bias and is absolutely not in any way a blatant insult directed not against my arguments, or even myself, but my entire country.
I'm not usually hugely nationalistic, but when someone I'm trying to have a reasonable argument with claims they factually know better than an entire nation and culture of people. I'm liable to lose my temper a tad.

 

[DanDeFool]

The argument I hear most frequently is that bad dudes don't care 'bout laws so we need guns to protect ourselves from the baddies.

(It's being said that the weapon the Colorado massacre was a legal rifle, AR-15, which was legalized after the ban on it ran out. So, it's possible that stricter laws could have prevented a slaughter on that scale. But, that's not really the issue, because he probably could have gotten it regardless on the black-market.)

I don't think you'll ever be able to prevent real baddies from getting these kind of weapons, or diehard hunters.

I think the answer is education and having a license to own a weapon. I need a license to drive a car legally, but I can just go buy a shotgun? Though, that's more about personal safety and won't solve the issue of massacres.

[sub]That being said, my father owns a gun. It's a 9 mm and probably doesn't even work at this point. It's pretty much a bluff weapon.[/sub]

I think the idea is that if every law-abiding citizen in the US carried a gun, rates of gun crime would probably go up, while overall rates of violent crime would be significantly less. Basically, you're making things marginally less safe for everyone to make things significantly less safe for violent criminals.

For gun control to work in the US it would have to be a national ban with serious backing. You'd almost have to declare martial law and send the army in to be sure the citizenry (law-abiding and not) were effectively disarmed. And then what do you do about smugglers from Latin America?

Bottom line, I just don't think full-on gun control laws will work for the US, but I like the idea of licensing programs.

 

[freakymojo]

Even if the US wanted to make guns illegal, they couldnt really. they guns are already out there, it would take many many years to actually "collect" them.
the way i see it currently is that america can just deal with their guncrime, and i can be glad theyre illegal where i live.

let 'murrica be 'murrica people.

 

[jakeblues69]

Funny thing that I feel worth mentioning, I have a lot of friends in the UK, AUS & Europe, and one thing they all ask to do when they come visit, take a trip to the shooting range with me.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Tell me how owning a gun makes a person a potential criminal. If there is definitive proof that anyone who owns a handgun, rifle, assault rifle, shotgun, etc. will eventually commit a crime, then I would wholly support gun-control/bans. But since that type of thinking is exactly the same as saying "all Muslims are terrorists" it is stupid.
Also, outlawing guns in the US is an exercise in futility and would just mean that only criminals would have guns. Saying "oh but the UK outlawed guns and we're doing fine" only shows that you've no clue how much violent crime still goes on in your country.
Also, how exactly do you stop guns from being acquired in a country as big as the US? Moreover how would you enforce that law? Take it by force? How are you supposed to know who has a gun? Search every home in the US? Pretty sure thats a violation of civil rights and privacy.
All in all, taking away guns isn't going to deter criminal minds from doing what they do, and more importantly is just going to put guns in the hands of criminals ONLY.
Most people who own guns in the US aren't violent criminals anyway and you'd be punishing the majority for the sins of the minority and thats just ridiculous.

 

[Daveman]

some stuff I wrote...

1) Hyperbole. no one ever claimed gun carry stopped crime all together, but studies have shown that it does reduce violent crime, including armed robbery, rape, and even murder.

Here's a link to a primary source that confirms it: http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

2) It's not just about hunting, it's about self defense(and you don't want to defend yourself from an ak-47 wielding gang banger with a bolt action rifle). Further, fully-automatic weapons are already virtually illegal in the US, no one legally owns AK-47s, so you're again using hyperbole. The rifle you should be talking about is the AR-15, which is one of the best sport shooting rifles because of good accuracy, cheap ammo, and low recoil, not to mention a bunch of attachments. It's also a top choice for hunting certain game like bears and boars because a quick follow-up shot could save your life. Many hunters of these animals carry semi-automatic handguns for the same reason. Also, semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 are some of the best and only reliable home defense options. For example, in Arkansas, a police officer was fired upon by a drunk individual and it took 15 bullets from the officers handgun hitting the man to stop him from firing. Illinois police were fired upon by a junkie and it required a staggering 33 hits to prevent him from firing his weapon. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm As hunting rifles rarely carry more than 5 shots because it's often illegal to hunt with more than 5 loaded, they are not adequate for self defense.

3) Here you have to understand something, yes the constitution can be amended to adapt to changing times, but until it is amended by congress it is a binding document which protects our legal right to bear firearms. If you truly feel a ban is necessary, then do not argue for gun control laws which set precedents for violations of the bill of rights, but instead argue for an Amendment to the Constitution. So, while the 2nd amendment may not always be an argument against gun control, and individual who believes in the bill of rights should treat it as such until and unless it is amended out of the constitution.

Final word: It is wrong to allow innocent people to die, but as I've already said, a person is about 42 times more likely to defend themselves with a firearm than they are to be killed by one, including suicide. If you exclude suicide, a person is 125 times more likely to defend themselves with a firearm, than to be killed by one. So banning guns would cause many more deaths than it would stop, and by the it is wrong to kill an innocent argument, a gun ban is far worse than gun ownership.

Also: "readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ?error rate? for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high"
Maybe we should ban the police from having firearms and not the populace.


Shout out to any Australians on the forum, you might want to consider writing your politicians and asking them to re-legalize firearm ownership and use for self defense: * Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%." From the same primary source as above, if you want to fact check it.

Sure... lets stick with the numbered arguments.
1) I'm not clicking on that link. It's just for some reason I doubt "gunowners.org" is going to be the unbiased bastion of knowledge you might want it to be. I'll concede there are some studies that agree with your argument.

2) Well this numbering arguing thing clearly hasn't worked. I say some people argue it's for hunting, you say it's not just about hunting. That's obvious. That's why there are more points.

2)b) To actually respond to that argument... I'm not pro-hunting. I just think it's a different argument entirely. Frankly I think we should give the bear a gun at least to make it fair game. However the last line of your sentence makes my point exactly. Hunting rifles aren't meant for self-defence, and guns for "self-defence" is what I'm opposed to. I'm sure that drunk guy had his gun for self-defence from sober policemen.

3) What I got from what you were saying is it doesn't matter that the second amendment is (or isn't) a bad argument against gun control. It's law so it doesn't matter. I would agree with that, and I guess I would say they should get rid of it. It is a bit sad to just grab a convenient bit of legislation rather than actually argue from an actually justifiable standpoint.

I would question your use of statistics here but I really can't be bothered to look into them because I was gonna play some bulletstorm before I got distracted by responding to this post.

 

[Lucem712]

(It's being said that the weapon the Colorado massacre was a legal rifle, AR-15, which was legalized after the ban on it ran out. So, it's possible that stricter laws could have prevented a slaughter on that scale. But, that's not really the issue, because he probably could have gotten it regardless on the black-market.)

See, that's the problem. You are so "ok" with weapons being legal that massacre is fine, but you need to regulate the weapons more strictly so no more than 2-3 people get killed at the same time.

That's culture for you.

I'm not okay with the massacre, I was just being honest. There are many ways to kill people and people will always be crazy mo-fos.

Don't get me wrong, I probably wouldn't object to very strict gun laws and/or complete ban. I don't personally have a gun, nor do I felt the want to have one.

 

[GLo Jones]

People will always try to kill/threaten each other. Taking away methods of them doing that should NEVER be seen as a bad thing.

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as just outlawing them. The difference between the US and countries with strict gun control is that the regardless of any potential law changes, around 39-45% of American households have contain at least one gun. It would be practically impossible for any government to go and take the population's weapons away from them at this stage. You would simply create a black market.

 

[Xangba]

snip
Good example: Switserland. Their rate of family dramas is through the roof compared to the rest of the EU. Legal firearms are used in most cases. Swiss like all others have relationship problems. Except when things turn emotional and ugly, a Swiss citizen in their home is only a few seconds away from committing murder, because guns are readily available in all homes.

Take away the guns, and these crimes of opportunity will never happen. And if people go crazy, they can't do a lot of damage during the time they're freaking out, and a few black eyes will be the worst that happens.

Because that nice sharp kitchen knife couldn't be used, right?

The biggest fallacy is the idea that removing guns would get rid of gun crime and change nothing else, while the more logical idea is that removing gun crime would see an increase of other crimes. While the overall may drop (we don't know, very likely) crime will still happen with other tools. Gun crime is crime, they are not in two different categories.

Also to repeat something I said earlier, they are far too widespread for any kind of real banning or limiting to work in America. Short of tearing apart every single persons house to find the guns, people will still have them. This isn't to say we can't improve our gun laws, we most certainly can, but even anti-gun people in the States don't seem to understand that they are everywhere.