School Shooting and Guns

[StrangeSox]

Discuss.

 

 

My view:

 

Empirical evidence has shown, time and time again, that gun bans just do not work. It only serves to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, leading only the government and criminals armed (is there a difference?). Look at Chicago. Look at DC. Look at London. Gun bans simply do not work.

Edited February 15, 2008 by StrangeSox

[YASNY]

Discuss.

 

What a boring thread!

[EvilMonkey]

Can the gun grabbers explain what gun law they want passed that would have prevented this from happening? Unless it has just come out, I don't think it is known how he got the gun yet.

[Reddy]

um yeah... where were we?

 

Reddy thinks gun control = good

 

Others think makes civilians less safe

 

think that about sums it up.

[HuskyCaucasian]

um yeah... where were we?

 

Reddy thinks gun control = good

 

Others think makes civilians less safe

 

think that about sums it up.

I am on the fence. But I tend to lean it makes people safer.

[StrangeSox]

Can the gun grabbers explain what gun law they want passed that would have prevented this from happening? Unless it has just come out, I don't think it is known how he got the gun yet.

 

The idea is that we ban all guns and they all go away. Just like gambling, drugs, prostitution, etc.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I am in favor of bows and arrows for all civilians

[Reddy]

Can the gun grabbers explain what gun law they want passed that would have prevented this from happening? Unless it has just come out, I don't think it is known how he got the gun yet.

 

i don't know if anything could have been done about the shotgun, but as far as the handguns are concerned - thats where a law banning handguns would have been helpful.

[StrangeSox]

i don't know if anything could have been done about the shotgun, but as far as the handguns are concerned - thats where a law banning handguns would have been helpful.

 

Marijuana is banned. It can still be obtained easier than Sudafed.

[Reddy]

Marijuana is banned. It can still be obtained easier than Sudafed.

 

good point. yeah i dunno.

 

hey how bout this - require that all guns be made with grips that store your fingerprint so that you know who's used/registered to the gun. then people would think twice about committing a crime with it cuz they'd ID you in a heartbeat. i was kinda kidding at first but that'd be a pretty good idea... lol

[StrangeSox]

good point. yeah i dunno.

 

hey how bout this - require that all guns be made with grips that store your fingerprint so that you know who's used/registered to the gun. then people would think twice about committing a crime with it cuz they'd ID you in a heartbeat. i was kinda kidding at first but that'd be a pretty good idea... lol

 

That technology does exist. Here's the problems with that being the solution:

 

It would require a government database and registry of all guns.

 

It does nothing about the millions of cheap guns already out there.

[Reddy]

That technology does exist. Here's the problems with that being the solution:

 

It would require a government database and registry of all guns.

 

It does nothing about the millions of cheap guns already out there.

 

fine, it does nothing about the millions of guns out there but we should at least START with eliminating the source. and the war in Iraq costs what like 120 million a day? I think if we realign our priorities we could afford a government database and registry.

[StrangeSox]

fine, it does nothing about the millions of guns out there but we should at least START with eliminating the source. and the war in Iraq costs what like 120 million a day? I think if we realign our priorities we could afford a government database and registry.

 

The government database isn't a bad idea because of the money. It's a bad idea because the government has no business tracking every gun.

[Reddy]

The government database isn't a bad idea because of the money. It's a bad idea because the government has no business tracking every gun.

 

the government has no business protecting its constituency?

[StrangeSox]

Sometimes, the constituency needs protection from the government. The government is not all-knowing or all-wise. It is often corrupt, stupid, incompetent, and greedy. The first step in confiscating every weapon is registering and tracking every weapon.

Edited February 15, 2008 by StrangeSox

[Reddy]

Sometimes, the constituency needs protection from the government. The government is not all-knowing or all-wise. It is often corrupt, stupid, incompetent, and greedy.

 

correct, but in this case, when the stakes are peoples LIVES, i think the government has a right and an obligation to be involved.

[CanOfCorn]

StrangeSox, the problem with your argument (although I agree with it as a growing libertarian) is that there is a point where that argument doesn't work anymore. It was written when the only way to deal with a greedy, corrupt government was by force. That, at least not in the US, isn't really the case. So, I think we have to figure out some way to measure the likelihood of needing guns against gov't vs. the safety of its constituents. We may be beyond that point.

 

If you ask me, it goes back to education. Start early on the dangers of guns. The one thing about most hunters is that they are the probably the safest when it comes to guns. Because they know how to handle them.

[StrangeSox]

StrangeSox, the problem with your argument (although I agree with it as a growing libertarian) is that there is a point where that argument doesn't work anymore. It was written when the only way to deal with a greedy, corrupt government was by force. That, at least not in the US, isn't really the case. So, I think we have to figure out some way to measure the likelihood of needing guns against gov't vs. the safety of its constituents. We may be beyond that point.

 

If you ask me, it goes back to education. Start early on the dangers of guns. The one thing about most hunters is that they are the probably the safest when it comes to guns. Because they know how to handle them.

 

But gun laws and banning guns doesn't increase safety. In places like Texas, where there are open and concealed carry laws, are there higher gun crime rates? Crazy wild-west like shootings at the bars or malls? People supporting gun bans always say that more guns= more violence, but reality doesn't bear that out.

[CanOfCorn]

But gun laws and banning guns doesn't increase safety. In places like Texas, where there are open and concealed carry laws, are there higher gun crime rates? Crazy wild-west like shootings at the bars or malls? People supporting gun bans always say that more guns= more violence, but reality doesn't bear that out.

 

True, but neither does the second amendment really apply anymore the way it was written. I don't know what the answer is. But it isn't working the way it is now, either. you want it bad enough, you're gonna get it.

[Soxbadger]

In places like Texas, where there are open and concealed carry laws, are there higher gun crime rates? Crazy wild-west like shootings at the bars or malls? People supporting gun bans always say that more guns= more violence, but reality doesn't bear that out.

 

Actually thats not exactly true. People forget that one of the first and most tragic school shootings happened at....

 

The University of Texas.

 

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murd...an/index_1.html

 

Whitman killed 14 people in less than 2 hours.

 

As for your other statement about CCW:

 

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=ccw

 

:

#

 

More guns = more crime - or at least a much smaller reduction in the crime rate. A 1999 study by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence), using FBI crime statistics, demonstrated that liberalizing CCW laws may have an adverse effect on a state's crime rate. Between 1992 and 1998, the violent crime rate in states which kept strict CCW laws fell by an average of 30%. The violent crime rate for the states that had weak CCW laws during this same time saw their violent crime rates drop by only 15%. Nationally, violent crime declined by 25% during that same period. (Click here to see the study, Concealed Truth.) Clearly, states with stricter CCW laws have found more effective ways to reduce their crime rates than letting more people carry hidden handguns.

 

Less concealed weapons = greater reduction in violent crime rate.

 

Now I didnt do these studies, Im just reporting the facts.

Edited February 15, 2008 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

Actually thats not exactly true. People forget that one of the first and most tragic school shootings happened at....

 

The University of Texas.

 

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murd...an/index_1.html

 

Whitman killed 14 people in less than 2 hours.

 

I'm talking overall, not these major tragedy cases. Are gun crimes higher in places with CCW?

 

 

 

As for your other statement about CCW:

 

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=ccw

Less concealed weapons = greater reduction in violent crime rate.

 

Now I didnt do these studies, Im just reporting the facts.

 

I wouldn't trust a study from the Brady campaign any more than one from the NRA.

 

[Reddy]

But gun laws and banning guns doesn't increase safety. In places like Texas, where there are open and concealed carry laws, are there higher gun crime rates? Crazy wild-west like shootings at the bars or malls? People supporting gun bans always say that more guns= more violence, but reality doesn't bear that out.

 

how are you so sure that laws dont increase safety??? get rid of them all and i betcha you'd see an increase in violence. and the other thing - if we make it extremely hard to get guns by banning them etc, you may not stop crime, but you'll definitely see this school violence drop drastically because these kids only have guns cuz they're EASY to get. Make it harder and they probably wont have the ability to commit the crime. They're not connected into the underground gun trafficking world quite yet...

[Reddy]

I'm talking overall, not these major tragedy cases. Are gun crimes higher in places with CCW?

 

but it's these major tragedies that we need to stop. Gun violence will never disappear - but we have to do something to stop these atrocities from occuring.

[Soxbadger]

I'm talking overall, not these major tragedy cases. Are gun crimes higher in places with CCW?

 

Thats an impossible statistic to make.

 

Not all crime statutes are the same in each state, not all gun laws are the same in each state.

 

The facts I have seen suggest that those states with stricter CCW have seen a more drastic decline in violent crime (once again violent crime is a broad term this includes knife violence is my guess). The other fact I have seen is that, the US in comparison to other countries that do not allow the ownership of guns, has a higher rate of gun violence.

 

http://www.enotes.com/can-gun-article

 

Compared to other industrialized nations, the United States has a higher per capita rate of fatalities due to firearm violence. In 2000, firearms killed 8,493 Americans, out of a population of over 270 million. By comparison, Great Britain, which has a population of 59.5 million, has averaged fiftytwo firearms-related homicides per year since 1997. Australia—a nation of 19 million—reported sixty-five firearms-related homicides in 1999. Japan, with a population of 126 million, had twenty-two firearms-related murders in 1997. Even when these numbers are adjusted for differences in population sizes, it is obvious that the rates of gun violence in America dramatically exceed those in other developed nations.

 

Those numbers are staggering;

 

US over 8,000 deaths per year to gun violence.

 

Australia 65 per year

 

Great Britain 52 per year

 

Japan 22 per year

 

Even if you multiply those deaths by 10x, its still so drastic to America's total that you just have to ask, are we really right?

 

I wouldn't trust a study from the Brady campaign any more than one from the NRA.

 

Either would I.

 

But no one has ever shown a correlation between gun ownership and the decline of gun violence.

 

 

http://www.enotes.com/can-gun-article

 

Building on the Brady Bill

Despite the misgivings many Americans have toward applying the gun control laws of other nations to the United States, gun control advocates maintain that building upon the success of the Brady Bill would help further reduce gun violence. According to the organization Handgun Control, robberies committed with a firearm fell by 33.7 percent between 1994 (the year the Brady Bill took effect) and 1998, from 257,483 to 170,611. The rate of gun-related homicides also declined sharply, from 15,463 to 10,977, a drop of 29 percent.

 

 

 

[Reddy]

Thats an impossible statistic to make.

 

Not all crime statutes are the same in each state, not all gun laws are the same in each state.

 

The facts I have seen suggest that those states with stricter CCW have seen a more drastic decline in violent crime (once again violent crime is a broad term this includes knife violence is my guess). The other fact I have seen is that, the US in comparison to other countries that do not allow the ownership of guns, has a higher rate of gun violence.

 

http://www.enotes.com/can-gun-article

Those numbers are staggering;

 

US over 8,000 deaths per year to gun violence.

 

Australia 65 per year

 

Great Britain 52 per year

 

Japan 22 per year

 

Even if you multiply those deaths by 10x, its still so drastic to America's total that you just have to ask, are we really right?

Either would I.

 

But no one has ever shown a correlation between gun ownership and the decline of gun violence.

http://www.enotes.com/can-gun-article

 

wow. so what are they doing that we're not?