Gun control debate

[StrangeSox]

So how many, would have been too many, in this instance?

 

That is an impossible question to answer.

 

We know that zero was too few.

 

The positives far outweigh the negatives.

[Texsox]

That is an impossible question to answer.

 

We know that zero was too few.

 

The positives far outweigh the negatives.

 

No, we know that two was too many. That is an absolute fact. He doesn't have a gun those people are probably alive. We can debate whether a few more people also firing would have added to, or subtracted from, the total.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Apr 17, 2007 -> 05:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, you assume that everyone in the class or school is packing heat. Even in the most gun crazy of states, that would not be true. While the gun laws vary from state to state, not everyone can get a gun, and not everyone who has a gun can get a concealed carry permit.

No, I am assuming that at least one asshole is packing heat, not every person.

 

One asshole packing heat is more likely to cause deaths, than an asshole not carrying a weapon.

 

That's why schools don't allow that kind of crap on campus property

Edited April 17, 2007 by santo=dorf

[EvilMonkey]

No, I am assuming that at least one asshole is packing heat, not every person.

 

One asshole packing heat is more likely to cause deaths, than an asshole not carrying a weapon.

 

That's why schools don't allow that kind of crap on campus property

If you're an asshole, how likely are you to pass the background check for a concealed carry? If your temper is such that someone stepping on your shoes sets you off, you probably already have a record, which would prevent you from getting the permit. Schools don't allow that crap because they are liberal institutions to begin with, and anything pro-gun would be against their nature. That's also why many are trying to eliminate ROTC and hamper recruiting on campuses.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

If you're an asshole, how likely are you to pass the background check for a concealed carry? If your temper is such that someone stepping on your shoes sets you off, you probably already have a record, which would prevent you from getting the permit.

 

 

By the way...

 

the VA Tech shooter had obtained his gun(s) legally.

[EvilMonkey]

Who did NOT have a concealed carry permit.

[Rex Kickass]

Has that been established yet?

 

And really, why does that matter? He had his gun legally after all.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Apr 17, 2007 -> 09:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who did NOT have a concealed carry permit.

...and like I said before, all it takes is one bad breakup with a girlfriend that possibly turns that fearful, responsible, gun owner into a suicidial and/or revenge hunting maniac.

[NorthSideSox72]

I really wish some of this anger about guns would be directed at people driving drunk or otherwise unsafely, which kills hundreds of times more people per year than guns. Or at the rise of violence generally in American society - the fact that we seem to be OK with grotesque violence on TV and in movies, but god forbid a naked breast shows up.

[EvilMonkey]

...and like I said before, all it takes is one bad breakup with a girlfriend that possibly turns that fearful, responsible, gun owner into a suicidial and/or revenge hunting maniac.

People don't need guns to do that, and guns don't make that decision easier. If a person would turn into a 'suicidal and/or revenge hunting maniac', they would do it with or without guns. Guns are not the problem here.

[Jenksismyhero]

I really wish some of this anger about guns would be directed at people driving drunk or otherwise unsafely, which kills hundreds of times more people per year than guns. Or at the rise of violence generally in American society - the fact that we seem to be OK with grotesque violence on TV and in movies, but god forbid a naked breast shows up.

 

 

Completely agree.

[Controlled Chaos]

People don't need guns to do that, and guns don't make that decision easier. If a person would turn into a 'suicidal and/or revenge hunting maniac', they would do it with or without guns. Guns are not the problem here.

Yep... If that person wanted to turn into a suicidal revenge hunting maniac...he would find a way to get a gun or even worse go on the internet and learn how to build a bomb. Which, I unfortunately think is the next thing to happen with these psychos hell bent on killing innocent people in their fits of rage. It's a f***in sad sad state.

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with certain people carrying their guns. Be it off duty cops, service veterans, or someone whom has completed extensive training. The people willing to go through that training and carry weapons, do so knowing they can be giving their life to help a starnger. Some people are heros and willing to make sacrifices for others.

 

If there was a off duty cop in that class or an ex marine or something...they could have taken him out. We can talk about what ifs till we're blue in the face, but I believe if a veteran was in that class and carrying he would have tried to defend against this guy.

 

It's ridiculous how this shooting has turned into a anti-gun debate on the media.

[StrangeSox]

It's ridiculous how this shooting has turned into a anti-gun debate on the media.

 

Nobody is more misinformed about guns than the media.

 

They actually said something along the lines of "He used a .22, that's a very powerful gun." They also harp "semi-auto" over and over again. What handgun ISN'T semi-auto?

[BigSqwert]

This has become an anti gun debate because you don't see these kinds of things happen in other civilized societies where guns are either banned altogether or are extremely controlled. America has a disturbing obsession for the right to bear arms. I can't see how our society wouldn't be better off if guns were completely taken out of the equation. I know the gun proponents will reply that criminals will still get black market guns but I would think the overall supply of guns would be minuscule in comparison to what it is today if the market for legal guns shrank exponentially. And if banning guns altogether is a bad thing for all the hunters out there in this country so be it. I'd rather have less blood baths and sad hunters than a society of trigger happy criminals. Take up fishing.

[NorthSideSox72]

This has become an anti gun debate because you don't see these kinds of things happen in other civilized societies where guns are either banned altogether or are extremely controlled. America has a disturbing obsession for the right to bear arms. I can't see how our society wouldn't be better off if guns were completely taken out of the equation. I know the gun proponents will reply that criminals will still get black market guns but I would think the overall supply of guns would be minuscule in comparison to what it is today if the market for legal guns shrank exponentially. And if banning guns altogether is a bad thing for all the hunters out there in this country so be it. I'd rather have less blood baths and sad hunters than a society of trigger happy criminals. Take up fishing.

Hunting isn't the primary issue. And yes, these things do and have happened in the UK, Australia, etc. Maybe not this exact example, but they still happen.

 

You cannot remove guns from the equation - its not possible. So why on earth would you take them away only from those who obtain them legally?

[BigSqwert]

Hunting isn't the primary issue. And yes, these things do and have happened in the UK, Australia, etc. Maybe not this exact example, but they still happen.

 

You cannot remove guns from the equation - its not possible. So why on earth would you take them away only from those who obtain them legally?

I see no purpose for a civilized society to have guns. In my ideal world guns would be illegal to everyone except law enforcement and armed services. Gun manufacturing would exist only to provide for those outlets. Black market guns would be almost impossible to obtain in this scenario. There wouldn't be such an influx of guns out there for people to trade on the black market. Violent murders would undoubtedly decrease in this type of society. I know it would never disappear since there always will be crime and a small percentage of nut cases like this kid in Virginia Tech.

[Jenksismyhero]

Hunting isn't the primary issue. And yes, these things do and have happened in the UK, Australia, etc. Maybe not this exact example, but they still happen.

 

You cannot remove guns from the equation - its not possible. So why on earth would you take them away only from those who obtain them legally?

 

And why doesn't anyone talk about alcohol?? We know, for a fact, that hundreds and hundreds will die every year, solely because of alochol. Yet we don't have this crazy uproar about how we need to ban alcohol.

 

Crazy things happen once every few years that involve guns and the country goes crazy. Why do we accept terrible tragedies in some instances but not in others? Is the opportunity cost of giving up alcohol really that great?

[BigSqwert]

And why doesn't anyone talk about alcohol?? We know, for a fact, that hundreds and hundreds will die every year, solely because of alochol. Yet we don't have this crazy uproar about how we need to ban alcohol.

Guns are made to kill whether it be an animal or a person. That is its sole purpose. I see absolutely no need for them aside from law enforcement or armed services.

 

Alcohol is not created to kill anything although people who abuse it can unintentionally cause death.

Edited April 18, 2007 by BigSqwert

[Jenksismyhero]

Guns are made to kill whether it be an animal or a person. That is its sole purpose. I see absolutely no need for them aside from law enforcement or armed services.

 

Alcohol is not created to kill anything although people who abuse it can unintentionally cause death.

 

What's the difference? Your issue is that guns cause 'blood baths.' Well, with alcohol, more people die per year in similiar baths. So why is that loss acceptable?

[BigSqwert]

What's the difference?

You can kill a person with a gun. You can't kill a person with a can of beer....unless you bashed them over the head several times. There are a million things that can indirectly kill someone and alcohol is one of them. Guns are made to kill and only to kill. Alcohol is not.

[NorthSideSox72]

You can kill a person with a gun. You can't kill a person with a can of beer....unless you bashed them over the head several times. There are a million things that can indirectly kill someone and alcohol is one of them. Guns are made to kill and only to kill. Alcohol is not.

I understand your point about the purpose of guns, but, drinking and driving are choices, just as the use of a gun is a choice. They can both be used responsibly or irresponsibly. And since DUI's kill tens of thousands each year, I think the parallel is relevant.

 

 

I see no purpose for a civilized society to have guns. In my ideal world guns would be illegal to everyone except law enforcement and armed services. Gun manufacturing would exist only to provide for those outlets. Black market guns would be almost impossible to obtain in this scenario. There wouldn't be such an influx of guns out there for people to trade on the black market. Violent murders would undoubtedly decrease in this type of society. I know it would never disappear since there always will be crime and a small percentage of nut cases like this kid in Virginia Tech.

1. I would not want to live in a country that trusted its own government that much.

 

2. That sure would be nice, wouldn't it? If all governments were truly representative of their people's interests, and all guns were off the streets? Unfortunately, that is not even remotely possible, so let's deal in reality.

[southsideirish71]

Nobody is more misinformed about guns than the media.

 

They actually said something along the lines of "He used a .22, that's a very powerful gun." They also harp "semi-auto" over and over again. What handgun ISN'T semi-auto?

 

I remember this from my ballistics class.

 

The instructor put 2 guns side by side. One was this pussy looking .22, and the other was a Glock 9mm. He then asked which one will you rather not get shot with. Everyone looked and said, the 9mm. More power.

 

The instructor said he would rather get a round from a 9mm. Its a high velocity round, and a lot of times runs right through you. While the .22 is a soft round, and has a tendency to ricochet through the body creating a lot of secondary damage. This is the round where you see someone get shot in shoulder, and the bullet winds up in the liver. People think its a glorified BB gun, when it can and will kill you.

Edited April 18, 2007 by southsideirish71

[Balta1701]

So, turns out this person, who again was able to legally buy 2 guys and a gigantic pile of ammunition, had a couple of previous accusations of stalking and had been taken to a mental facility on request of his parents for fears he might be suicidal.

[StrangeSox]

I see no purpose for a civilized society to have guns. In my ideal world guns would be illegal to everyone except law enforcement and armed services. Gun manufacturing would exist only to provide for those outlets. Black market guns would be almost impossible to obtain in this scenario. There wouldn't be such an influx of guns out there for people to trade on the black market. Violent murders would undoubtedly decrease in this type of society. I know it would never disappear since there always will be crime and a small percentage of nut cases like this kid in Virginia Tech.

 

Unfortunately, we live in reality and not idealism.

 

You would never have a hope of eliminating black market guns, just as you have no hope of eliminating things like drugs. The profits are just too high.

 

And I don't trust the government enough to be the only people with guns. We can all see how screwed up and corrupt they are.

 

I remember this from my ballistics class.

 

The instructor put 2 guns side by side. One was this pussy looking .22, and the other was a Glock 9mm. He then asked which one will you rather not get shot with. Everyone looked and said, the 9mm. More power.

 

The instructor said he would rather get a round from a 9mm. Its a high velocity round, and a lot of times runs right through you. While the .22 is a soft round, and has a tendency to ricochet through the body creating a lot of secondary damage. This is the round where you see someone get shot in shoulder, and the bullet winds up in the liver. People think its a glorified BB gun, when it can and will kill you.

 

Interesting.

 

I never said it couldn't kill you or do some serious damage, but it still isn't a "very powerful weapon." The media just has no clue when it comes to guns.

Edited April 18, 2007 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Unfortunately, we live in reality and not idealism.

 

You would never have a hope of eliminating black market guns, just as you have no hope of eliminating things like drugs. The profits are just too high.

Not sure what else to say, but I would just like to point out how interesting it is to compare owning a gun to addictive, illegal substances like drugs.

And I don't trust the government enough to be the only people with guns. We can all see how screwed up and corrupt they are.

So, you trust the government with enough atomic weapons to end civilization, you trust them with an army that could overrun any other army in the world, with equipment that could use conventional weapons to kill millions extremely rapidly, but you don't trust them to be the only ones with guns.