Discuss the second amendment here.

[Melchiah]

Dude, gun control is good. To an extent, I agree with you. I just wish that people wouldn't label guns as the #1 reason why things like this happen. It's simply not the case. I'm sorry if you can't understand that. The kid had issues. Maybe mental problems. That's a reason why it happened. Guns aren't a reason why things like this happen. They can be a means, but so can a lot of other things. If guns made you do this, then I'd have already shot up a bunch of people.

Please tell me the more rational solution in this situation; to monitor every single person in the country to make sure they are mentally ok to do day-to-day business without the concern they may snap and kill someone,

or,

remove the possibility that people who have the potential to commit a violent crime have the main tool used to commit that crime with ( a gun ) to access said tool.


Really, if we're going to have a valid argument on a logical solution please tell me which makes more sense.

Because gun legislation only affects people who obey the law.

[Rammses]

How come placess that have a high percentage of gun ownership per capita have low crime rates divisor?

Cause they don't have as many social problems..... It's is not rocket science. If you take a look at the link I posted earlier you will see that the 2 european countries with perhaps the most guns per capita, Finland and Switzerland, have a higher homocide rate than comparable nations with stricter gun laws.

A-ha! So the problem ISNT guns, it's social problems.

Let's solve the problems! If Sweden can live in peace with guns, why can't we!

the 2 european countries with perhaps the most guns per capita, Finland and Switzerland, have a higher homocide rate than comparable nations with stricter gun laws.

I can quote it again if that makes it easier for you.

[Devek]

The Switz make good metal bands too so you have to factor that into their statistics.

[BarthelloSylph]

How come placess that have a high percentage of gun ownership per capita have low crime rates divisor?

Cause they don't have as many social problems..... It's is not rocket science. If you take a look at the link I posted earlier you will see that the 2 european countries with perhaps the most guns per capita, Finland and Switzerland, have a higher homocide rate than comparable nations with stricter gun laws.

A-ha! So the problem ISNT guns, it's social problems.

Let's solve the problems! If Sweden can live in peace with guns, why can't we!

the 2 european countries with perhaps the most guns per capita, Finland and Switzerland, have a higher homocide rate than comparable nations with stricter gun laws.

I can quote it again if that makes it easier for you.

Ahh I misread before. Can you run similar comparisons to countries with high rates of baseball bats and knives?

There's a statistics term for relationships that mask the true causal relationships between variables, I forget what it is, but this is an example.

Logic can lead ya through it though - guns aren't the cause. They are the means. Thus they are part of the problem, but solving guns won't solve the problem. There will just be another means.

But by all means, keep throwing out numbers. The stats will be the same for whatever the next weapon is, cause the problem will remain the same!

Read my previous posts for more information.

[Cleveland]

Sorry dude but guns are not a side effect of people with social issues. Guns are as much a part of the problem as social problems are. Guns are made and distributed by warmongers and uncaring, greedy, sociopath corporate degenerates who PROFIT FROM WAR.

If guns and bullets aren't made, will "the criminals" make bullets to kill you with?

Rich countries make guns and ammo, and sell them to poor countries. They sell them to themselves. That is the root problem, not media, not society, not NOBODY PUT ON THUR CAPE RIGHT THUR.

I own several guns, including 1 handgun, 2 assault rifles, a sniper rifle, several WWII M1 Garands, and various other Russian weaponry. And by this logic...I should be a violent criminal, because guns cause violent crimes and make someone a violent offender. Yet, I have never harmed a single person in my life.

[Devek]

That and and we found people in Afghanistan's Khyber Pass making their own AK47s with simple metalworking tools/forges...

[BarthelloSylph]

I love your sig Devek. Hilarious.

[divisortheory]

I own several guns, including 1 handgun, 2 assault rifles, a sniper rifle, several WWII M1 Garands, and various other Russian weaponry. And by this logic...I should be a violent criminal, because guns cause violent crimes and make someone a violent offender. Yet, I have never harmed a single person in my life.

Congratulations.

[Lauzian]

How come placess that have a high percentage of gun ownership per capita have low crime rates divisor?

Cause they don't have as many social problems..... It's is not rocket science. If you take a look at the link I posted earlier you will see that the 2 european countries with perhaps the most guns per capita, Finland and Switzerland, have a higher homocide rate than comparable nations with stricter gun laws.

A-ha! So the problem ISNT guns, it's social problems.

Let's solve the problems! If Sweden can live in peace with guns, why can't we!

the 2 european countries with perhaps the most guns per capita, Finland and Switzerland, have a higher homocide rate than comparable nations with stricter gun laws.

I can quote it again if that makes it easier for you.

Maybe I am missing your point here but I see 2 Finland (2.9), Switzerland (2.75) nations with more guns per capita than the U.S. but a lot less social problems and their homicide rates are less than half of the U.S.'s (5.9). If you are comparing them to the other European nations your point is a little more understandable but from what I see in that chart, working on the social problems would have a much greater impact than more gun control. 5.9 -> 2.9 50% reduction vs. 2.9 -> 2.03 (England) 28% reduction.

[Rammses]

Maybe I am missing your point here but I see 2 Finland (2.9), Switzerland (2.75) nations with more guns per capita than the U.S. but a lot less social problems and their homicide rates are less than half of the U.S.'s (5.9). If you are comparing them to the other European nations your point is a little more understandable but from what I see in that chart, working on the social problems would have a much greater impact than more gun control. 5.9 -> 2.9 50% reduction vs. 2.9 -> 2.03 (England) 28% reduction.

Working on the social problems would not only solve gun-related crime but also crime in general. So yeah, great idea. It's just a bit more complicated to stop people from being poor or depressed. Especially when your government spends $360 billion on... let's not go there.

Only working on the effects while avoiding the main cause can indeed be destructive but it's a better option than having 32 college students randomly murdered by some flipped out kid. The best thing would obviously be to prevent both the effects and the cause. And the best way to prevent the effects of gun-related crime is in my opinion, supported by statistics, logic and psychology, to decrease the number of guns. And that's not going to happen without a ban or much stricter laws.

[BarthelloSylph]

How come placess that have a high percentage of gun ownership per capita have low crime rates divisor?

Cause they don't have as many social problems..... It's is not rocket science. If you take a look at the link I posted earlier you will see that the 2 european countries with perhaps the most guns per capita, Finland and Switzerland, have a higher homocide rate than comparable nations with stricter gun laws.

A-ha! So the problem ISNT guns, it's social problems.

Let's solve the problems! If Sweden can live in peace with guns, why can't we!

the 2 european countries with perhaps the most guns per capita, Finland and Switzerland, have a higher homocide rate than comparable nations with stricter gun laws.

I can quote it again if that makes it easier for you.

Maybe I am missing your point here but I see 2 Finland (2.9), Switzerland (2.75) nations with more guns per capita than the U.S. but a lot less social problems and their homicide rates are less than half of the U.S.'s (5.9). If you are comparing them to the other European nations your point is a little more understandable but from what I see in that chart, working on the social problems would have a much greater impact than more gun control. 5.9 -> 2.9 50% reduction vs. 2.9 -> 2.03 (England) 28% reduction.

Thats what I thought too

[Khamsin]

Ahh I misread before. Can you run similar comparisons to countries with high rates of baseball bats and knives?

There's a statistics term for relationships that mask the true causal relationships between variables, I forget what it is, but this is an example.

Logic can lead ya through it though - guns aren't the cause. They are the means. Thus they are part of the problem, but solving guns won't solve the problem. There will just be another means.

But by all means, keep throwing out numbers. The stats will be the same for whatever the next weapon is, cause the problem will remain the same!

Read my previous posts for more information.

I think people would be more reluctant to commit a crime using a baseball bat than a gun, just because a gun gives you security. You can defend yourself and harm others from afar without getting near them. And its always fatal if you shoot somebody in the right spot, so people are more afraid of getting shot than getting hit with a baseball bat or even a knife. However, with a baseball bat or a knife, you have to actually engage in combat with your victim so there's a risk of actually losing. Instead of one shot and its over, you both have ample opportunity to injure each other before one of you "wins".

With a gun, its easy. Less risk to the criminal, and they don't have to get near anybody or get distracted with an actual fight. They can stay back, aim the gun at people, and not be caught off-guard by another person while attempting to bash someone else with a bat.

[BarthelloSylph]

Ahh I misread before. Can you run similar comparisons to countries with high rates of baseball bats and knives?

There's a statistics term for relationships that mask the true causal relationships between variables, I forget what it is, but this is an example.

Logic can lead ya through it though - guns aren't the cause. They are the means. Thus they are part of the problem, but solving guns won't solve the problem. There will just be another means.

But by all means, keep throwing out numbers. The stats will be the same for whatever the next weapon is, cause the problem will remain the same!

Read my previous posts for more information.

I think people would be more reluctant to commit a crime using a baseball bat than a gun, just because a gun gives you security. You can defend yourself and harm others from afar without getting near them. And its always fatal if you shoot somebody in the right spot, so people are more afraid of getting shot than getting hit with a baseball bat or even a knife. However, with a baseball bat or a knife, you have to actually engage in combat with your victim so there's a risk of actually losing. Instead of one shot and its over, you both have ample opportunity to injure each other before one of you "wins".

With a gun, its easy. Less risk to the criminal, and they don't have to get near anybody or get distracted with an actual fight. They can stay back, aim the gun at people, and not be caught off-guard by another person while attempting to bash someone else with a bat.

I guess my point is:

Dont focus on the gun, cause it used to be the sword, and in the future it'll be something else, like a blaster from star wars.

Banning guns is banning the means, but there will be other means in the future, and banning guns wont be that effective anyways in my opinion.

If other countries can do gun control and have lower crime rates, what are we doing differently? Solve the social aspect of the problem - the cause if you will - instead of the means.

Hope this made sense - the gun is just the modern way of killing someone. you're crazy if you think we won't come up with something else...

[Scar]

Japan's much stricter gun control laws didn't seem to stop this from happening-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070417/...ting_repeat_dc

Keep in mind that some of the police over there don't even carry guns...

[MF Perm]

Dude, gun control is good. To an extent, I agree with you. I just wish that people wouldn't label guns as the #1 reason why things like this happen. It's simply not the case. I'm sorry if you can't understand that. The kid had issues. Maybe mental problems. That's a reason why it happened. Guns aren't a reason why things like this happen. They can be a means, but so can a lot of other things. If guns made you do this, then I'd have already shot up a bunch of people.

Please tell me the more rational solution in this situation; to monitor every single person in the country to make sure they are mentally ok to do day-to-day business without the concern they may snap and kill someone,

or,

remove the possibility that people who have the potential to commit a violent crime have the main tool used to commit that crime with ( a gun ) to access said tool.


Really, if we're going to have a valid argument on a logical solution please tell me which makes more sense.

Both are impossible. How about we have a measure of gun control - waiting periods, mental checks, etc. - and also have a system in place where people can report people who write nutso plays, or encourage people to speak up if they have info that people are about to fly plans into buildings.

In both situations, there were chances to stop the events. Maybe nothing would happened if there had been a system in place to inform the authorities, but we'll never know now.

MFPerm, you keep avoiding solving the problems, and instead continue to attack the means. Dude, don't know some history? Before guns people killed people, after guns people will kill people. You can make it better for awhile by accomplishing your IMPOSSIBLE goal of banning all guns - but you aren't going to stop people from killing each other.

Come on dude - you are smarter than this, I can tell. You can't rid everyone of guns. And guns aren't the underlying problem. Use your logic :wink:

Before I dive into this, I just want to note I read to the end of page 9 and came back to quote this.

First of all, this isn't a matter of who's "right" and who's "wrong" as you following post described. This is a matter of debate between what would reduce the plausibility of something like Columbine, VATech massacre, and other assorted gun crimes that plague the country.

Now, I have seen maybe 10 posts where you say something about fixing society, mental state of people, keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies and let you keep yours.

But not ONE TIME have you given an example of how this is to be achieved. I have backed my case with ideas and concessions, but I don't see this coming from you or anyone else that's pro-gun. All I hear is the same things over and over again that it's not guns it's people - but no progressive solution except that we should be able to keep guns to fight the "criminals".

I'm not going to get back into the several ( very articulate and well made )
points made by several people regarding what a criminal is, comparison to other countries, social and mental capacity vs. gun availability in this country and so on and so forth. But they are there, and I recommend going back and reading them before going forward or repeating yourself.

I keep avoiding solving the problems? No. My opinion is that the problem is the ease in which guns are acquired in this country, and that the manufacturers get rich off of a product which is made for no other reason but to harm and kill. Everyone keeps bringing up these mysterious criminals and murdering vagrants, but no one mentions why there is crime. It is a little more complex idea than the fact that people can just break into your house for any old reason to take what you have because they own a gun and you don't.

That is absolutely fucking ludicrous.

We have a country mired in debt, addiction and poverty. These are contributors to crime, the end result of that is a person who acts in regards to a situation stemming from that. The tool used to commit a crime is a gun. If you take guns out of the equation, the death toll goes down. But it goes further than that, because that specific tool is - big word here - EMPOWERING. The same way a guy alone takes an insult in stride in most instance, but with his boys around he makes a lot of noise.

Violent crimes are the result of what? People with guns. Take with guns out of that, and put baseball bat. Give me some numbers. I seriously doubt you'll have a case, and excuse me but countries with strict gun laws don't have an increase in blunt weapon violence. Japan doesn't have ninjas popping out of bowls of rice to cut peoples throats for 10 yen.

And Japan has an extremely warmongering violent history with years of infighting.

I know people will die, and abolishing guns won't stop violent crime, but it will dramatically decrease it.


But please, let me hear some of your ideas about stopping people who write "nutso plays" and are "mental." I mean we don't have astronauts who pass the most rigorous of psychological trials go batshit out of nowhere, right? So mental tests aren't flawed, and people aren't capable of just losing their shit and blasting people with easily accessible guns. Nope. Not a chance.


edits: some spelling and ish

[Remedia]

/divert
http://www.stampede-entertainment.com/wrmkllr/gun-l.jpg

Fuck gun control.

[MF Perm]

/divert
http://www.stampede-entertainment.com/wrmkllr/gun-l.jpg

Fuck gun control.

Is that from Tremors? lol

[Remedia]

jackpot!

[MF Perm]

jackpot!

feckin word

[Melchiah]

Tell me MF Perm why when my father went to high school in the 1960s there was never a thought of taking a gun to school? I challenge you to find a recorded case of this kind of violence taking place during the generation of the baby boomers. Those would be people born after WWII. Also, I'd like to point out that there was little to no gun legislation at the time, no paper work, or red tape or waiting period to buy a gun. So why didn't what is happening today happen 40 years ago?