The Gun Debate

[Governator 54]

Let's stop playing the blame game and fix the real problem.

Then what is the real problem? I think allowing someone to go to the corner and buy a gun makes it too simple to kill someone. You could argue that without guns you could stab me with a fork and still kill me, but atleast I have a fighting chance to survive the attack and I think that's what matters most.

[scram 1]

At the top, I'm reading: "February 2002" ?

Correct. 2002 was approaching five years after they passed "more gun control to save puppies and nuns" in the way of C68.

[scram 1]

At the top, I'm reading: "February 2002" ?

Correct. 2002 was approaching five years after they passed "more gun control to save puppies and nuns" in the way of C68.

[insano 0]

Then what is the real problem? I think allowing someone to go to the corner and buy a gun makes it too simple to kill someone. You could argue that without guns you could stab me with a fork and still kill me, but atleast I have a fighting chance to survive the attack and I think that's what matters most.

I agree, and I'm not in any way saying that people should have easy access to guns.I believe that a simple gun ban would not do anything to actually limit the amout of violence in our society. I'm not even convinced that a gun ban would even limit the amount of guns on the street. It would just make it harder for your average person to obtain one because you couldn't go to wal mart and buy one anymore.As far as the problem, i'm not really sure. There is an obvious problem in our society related to violence, but identifying and solving the problem I am clueless how to do. Maybe it's in human nature to be violent, I don't know. I just know that I am not a violent person and there must be a reason why I am not while other certainly are.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Luckily for us, the Simpsons already covered this.Lisa finds the grave of William Bonney who was killed by gun violence. In his memory, she starts a gun control crusade, which makes Springfield totally gun-free; even the police no longer have guns. Now defenseless, the corpse of William "Billy the Kid" Bonney and his cohorts rise from the dead and start raising havoc in town. Professor Frink develops a time machine, which Homer uses to go back to the recent past to stop the ban on guns.

[7upncider 0]

Also, the comment that guns don't kill people...people do is ludicrous and asinine. Me making a trigger finger motion with my hand won't do a thing, but put a gun in my hand with me making that same motion and someone is getting killed. I have no problems with hunters having rifles and shotguns, but there absolutely no reason for anyone other than military or law enforcement personnel to own pistols, assault rifles, etc.

Hmmm So your saying guns goes out and shoot people by themselves huh. If that is the case lets get these guns for the military. That is the most asinine and ludicrous statement I honestly have ever heard. People kill people weather with the use of a gun or a knife they do it themselves. A knife or a gun cannot work without someone operating them. People makes the choice to do that stuff no the weapon they use. Wow you might want to rephrase that statement.

[hblask 1]

Also look at places like Texas and Missouri where conceal and carry is now legal. Every single state that has legalized conceal and carry have seen sharp increases in gun crime.

Do you have a reference for this? Because every study I've ever seen shows that gun crime is less of a problem in every area where concealed carry is legalized. This doesn't always means it goes down, but it rises more slowly in areas where similar areas are increasing, and goes down faster than in similar areas where rates are falling. In other words, your statement here appears to be false.

[scram 1]

Ugh.... Lets count how many things are either totally fallacious or completely wrong (as in- not just a matter of "opinion" but an entirely incorrect recitation of facts) with this post.

Yeah, it had to do with the British invading again, but nowadays the law makes little sense.

1) Wrong. The Second Amendment had to do with empowering citizens against government. Had nothing to do with "the British". Try reading some of the founders papers instead of trusting your North Suburban Chicagoland teachers.

Japan and Britain have some of the most strict gun laws in the world, and I don't think it's a coincidence that their crime rates are some of the lowest in the world as well.

2) Japan is almost an entirely homogeneous society and Britain absolutely does not have one of the "lowest crime rates in the world".

You will not find many gun supporters from the major cities because they know what damage they cause.

As a Chicago resident (Like, a real one who doesn't live in Chicagoland but actually in the city) your theory here is wrong. Handguns are banned in the city, but rumor has it that both of my neighbors have them (which is a lie, if I'm asked)I would offer a counter-theory. Firearms represent self-reliance- in this context, the ability to defend ones self.People who have an evolved sense of self-reliance are naturally disinclined to live in large cities and prefer to live in places like the country, or, sometimes the burbs. People who believe that humans are valued as a mass of collective rather than as individuals are more inclined to live in highly populated cities and less inclined to own things that represent self reliance.

Also look at places like Texas and Missouri where conceal and carry is now legal. Every single state that has legalized conceal and carry have seen sharp increases in gun crime.

LMAO! Ahahahahahahahahaaaa (*gasp* *choke*)That is just flat out false- like, so far away from being true that the light from the truth would take a billion years just to reach wherever the **** that statement is. In states that may have seen nominal increases in gun crime, there is absolutely no corollary between "gun crime" and lawful concealed carry permits since the people committing the gun crimes do not have permits to carry them. In Duval County, Florida (my other residence), the crime rate in 2005 was lower amongst Concealed Carry permit holders than it was the police. Of all the posts in this thread, yours is the absolute worst, most uninformed and ignorant of the lot.

[aadams_22 3]

Hmmm So your saying guns goes out and shoot people by themselves huh. If that is the case lets get these guns for the military. That is the most asinine and ludicrous statement I honestly have ever heard. People kill people weather with the use of a gun or a knife they do it themselves. A knife or a gun cannot work without someone operating them. People makes the choice to do that stuff no the weapon they use. Wow you might want to rephrase that statement.

what part of

Me making a trigger finger motion with my hand won't do a thing, but put a gun in my hand with me making that same motion and someone is getting killed.

did you not understand...do I really need to sit you down and explain it to you?

[hblask 1]

Ugh.... Lets count how many things are either totally fallacious or completely wrong (as in- not a matter of "opinion" but an incorrect recitation of facts)1) Wrong. It had to do with empowering citizens against government. Had nothing to do with "the British"2) Japan is almost an entirely homogeneous society and Britain absolutely does not have one of the "lowest crime rates in the world".As a Chicago resident (Like, a real one who doesn't live in Chicagoland but actually in the city) your theory here is wrong.I would offer a counter-theory. Firearms represent self-reliance- in this context, the ability to defend ones self.People who have an evolved sense of self-reliance are naturally disinclined to live in large cities and prefer to live in places like the country, or, sometimes the burbs. People who believe that we are a mass of collective rather than individuals are more inclined to live in highly populated cities.LMAO!That is just flat out false- like, so far away from being true that the light from the truth would take a billion years just to reach wherever the **** that statement is. In states that may have seen nominal increases in gun crime, there is absolutely no corollary between "gun crime" and lawful concealed carry permits since the people committing the gun crimes do not have permits to carry them. Of all the posts in this thread, yours is the absolute worst, most uninformed and ignorant of the lot.

I would add to this that people who hold a concealed carry permit have lower rates of gun crimes than the general population by a wide margin.Other important note: guns equalize the odds for the small and the weak, i.e., little old ladies. Removing guns from them causes them to be defenseless against the group most likely to be criminals, i.e., young males.

[Governator 54]

If a killer has a gun, I try to run away and he shoots me in the back and I die. If he runs at me with a knife and I outrun him then I survive with only minor injuries. If knives were the main weapon used today and not guns, I'd bet my house there would be more survivors from potential attacks.Guns don't kill people, you're right - people kill people, but guns make the job easier.

[jmkiser 0]

Then what is the real problem? I think allowing someone to go to the corner and buy a gun makes it too simple to kill someone. You could argue that without guns you could stab me with a fork and still kill me, but atleast I have a fighting chance to survive the attack and I think that's what matters most.

Last I checked, it required a lot of loops to get through to purchase a gun legally.The problems put out by the gun control people are problems with illegal firearms. I understand how gun control works in Britain and Canada and I would agree that those are two countries where gun control is possible. This is America, though, and the makeup of a nation-wide outlaw on guns is going to be literally impossible. We would have to go through the same process as Canada did. Go with stricter gun laws, make them stricter, and stricter, and stricter... until they are practically illegal... then you make the final swoop and voila... no more guns.The NRA wouldn't stand for it. I do think everyone who lives in cities understands that there is no need for guns. You won't be able to tell the farmers, though, that they can't have their own. Smart people are, obviously, able to realize that handguns have little use (other then to kill people), but banning handguns wouldn't really do anything. Gun laws are only going to take legal guns out of law-abiding citizen's hands. Just like drug laws only took harmless drugs out of law-abiding citizen's hands. About the innocent little kids who shoot themselves or their friends in the face, that is just tragic. Banning guns might cut down on the small amount of kids shot in the face, but those are drastic actions for little to practically no results. It's the criminals that carry the guns which everyone is worried about and gun laws aren't going to do anything to get those guns out of their hands. The problems are the criminals... not kids getting shot in the face on accident or people walking into office buildings and kill a bunch of coworkers. Those are just sad mishaps of which gun laws do nothing to change. The angry co-worker doesn't kill a bunch of coworkers with a gun, but instead sets fire to the office and burns everyone alive. The kids stop playing with guns, but instead play with poisonous house-hold liquids. **** happens and there's nothing we can do about that.What's the solution? To me, ease up on the drug laws. Do it slightly and slowly. Ease up bit by bit until you kill the black market on drugs because their won't be anything illegal for them to sell that isn't controlled or regulated by the government. Sure, criminals will be criminals and there will always be a black market on something, but it won't be to the intensity and to the massive size of the one that drugs are. Besides, it's hypocritical to outlaw marijuana and allow cigarettes and alcohol anyway.(and no, this isn't a secret "legalize weed" campaign... I, seriously, think that killing the major trade of the black market will lessen gun crime. Your next problem is turf wars in inner cities)

[aadams_22 3]

Do you have a reference for this? Because every study I've ever seen shows that gun crime is less of a problem in every area where concealed carry is legalized. This doesn't always means it goes down, but it rises more slowly in areas where similar areas are increasing, and goes down faster than in similar areas where rates are falling. In other words, your statement here appears to be false.

That is just flat out false- like, so far away from being true that the light from the truth would take a billion years just to reach wherever the **** that statement is. In states that may have seen nominal increases in gun crime, there is absolutely no corollary between "gun crime" and lawful concealed carry permits since the people committing the gun crimes do not have permits to carry them. Of all the posts in this thread, yours is the absolute worst, most uninformed and ignorant of the lot.

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=%22c...=1&.intl=usAnother fear of the proposed bill is that concealed handgun permits will become somewhat of a commodity, thus increasing the number of secretly armed citizens. Some argue that more guns lead to a rise in public safety. However, studies by the FBI and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence indicate that concealed weapons lead to higher instances of armed robbery and other gun-related crimes. Crime levels are decreasing across the nation, but the decline in crime is significantly hindered in states that have laws similar to the proposed bill.I personally like the bolded part

[scram 1]

Guns don't kill people, you're right - people kill people, but guns make the job easier.

So if someone kills a loved one of yours with, say, a hatchet, does that make you "angrier" than it would if they had used a firearm?No question that if one is bent on killing people, a firearm is a better choice than a hatchet, but from a philosophical perspective, I fail to see where you're coming from.

[7upncider 0]

Also, the comment that guns don't kill people...people do is ludicrous and asinine. Me making a trigger finger motion with my hand won't do a thing, but put a gun in my hand with me making that same motion and someone is getting killed.

hmmm i guess this part. lol. You saying this is flat out ludicrous all in itself. I dont need to comment on this again. You said it not me. By saying ludicrous and asinine you show me that you learned new words today. But when you argrue the point about guns not killing people, people do you need to go back to school and learn some more.

[Governator 54]

So if someone kills a loved one of yours with, say, a hatchet, does that make you "angrier" than it would if they had used a firearm?No question that if one is bent on killing people, a firearm is a better choice than a hatchet, but from a philosophical perspective, I fail to see where you're coming from.

.... I don't understand you're first statement at all... as being angry over a loved one and how they died has nothing to do with my argument.What I'm saying is more people would be alive today if there was a gun ban (or stricter laws)...

[scram 1]

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=%22c...=1&.intl=usAnother fear of the proposed bill is that concealed handgun permits will become somewhat of a commodity, thus increasing the number of secretly armed citizens. Some argue that more guns lead to a rise in public safety. However, studies by the FBI and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence indicate that concealed weapons lead to higher instances of armed robbery and other gun-related crimes. Crime levels are decreasing across the nation, but the decline in crime is significantly hindered in states that have laws similar to the proposed bill.I personally like the bolded part

"Studies indicate" , "they said" , "it's a well known fact" , "common sense" - those are all things that people say when they want to prove something that they can't using the facts.$100 freeroll if you can provide me any study that shows access to concealed carry permits has any direct corollary to any specific crime. Like, "armed robbers are going though the process to get a concealed carry permit to they can legally carry a firearm during their robberies" or "drug dealers are getting fingerprinted, photographed and having extensive background checks run so they can carry firearms while they're dealing drugs" (which itself is a felony, permit or not)

[DoinSublime 0]

CARNAGE AT VIRGINIA TECHLike me, I'm sure many of you are busy tracking the news stories out of Blacksburg, Virginia. A person, presumably a student, armed with two semi-automatic pistols has hilled at least 32 people. The shooter is dead. Whether by his own hand, or at the hands of law enforcement, is not yet known.As the initial shock wears off you can bet that the anti-Second Amendment people wall be coming out of the woodwork. By the time the evening network newscasts hit we will have no shortage of spokesmen for various anti-gun groups stepping forth to issue their tired call for an end to the private ownership of handguns. This is undoubtedly the worst school shooting, high school, college or otherwise, in the history of our country. There are some facts, however, about some of these school shootings of which you probably are not aware. Do you know, for instance, that at least three shootings in high schools were stopped by civilians with guns? Civilians, not law enforcement. In one case a civilian was traveling past a school when he saw children running from the building. One told him that there was a student inside shooting people. The civilian pulled his gun, ran in side, and confronted the student. The student put down the gun and surrendered. In another case a high school vice-principal heard that there was a student in the hallways with a gun. He sprinted a half-mile to his car. He had a gun in his car so he had to park off campus. He then sprinted back with the gun to confront the student. Lives saved.The point here is that you are never ever going to get the guns out of the hands of those who want to use them for carnage. Never. Gun control programs will only succeed in getting the guns out of the hands of people who want them and need them for self-defense. Never, in the history of America's gun control movement, has anyone set forth a viable program to get the guns out of the hands of those who would use them to commit crimes. Similarly, the gun control movement will never give any fair coverage at all to the people who use guns to save their own lives, or the lives of others. We'll have much more to say about this tomorrow. For now, you should know that earlier this year the Virginia General Assembly failed to act on House Bill 1572. This bill would have allowed college students and employees to carry handguns on campus --- with appropriate permits, of course. It died in subcommittee. Larry Hincker, a spokesman for Virginia Tech, the site of today's carnage, said "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."Well .. how's today for safety?If it had been legal for students, employees or faculty members with permits to carry guns on the campus, is it at all possible that there might be some students alive today who didn't make it through the carnage? Do you think the actions of the Virginia General Assembly stopped the gunman from getting his guns and carrying them to the campus?More on this tomorrow.-Neal Boortz

[aadams_22 3]

hmmm i guess this part. lol. You saying this is flat out ludicrous all in itself. I dont need to comment on this again. You said it not me. By saying ludicrous and asinine you show me that you learned new words today. But when you argrue the point about guns not killing people, people do you need to go back to school and learn some more.

Is that the best you can do?

[aadams_22 3]

"Studies indicate" , "they said" , "it's a well known fact" , "common sense" - those are all things that people say when they want to prove something that they can't using the facts.

same goes for you...is that the best you can do?

[scram 1]

What I'm saying is more people would be alive today if there was a gun ban (or stricter laws)...

When you say "more people would be alive today", are you referring specifically to the tragedy at VT today, or just in general?If you are referring to the shooting at VT, my limited knowledge of human nature tells me that someone who has decided to start killing people isn't going to be dissuaded from doing so because the gun he intends to use is deemed "illegal" based on a piece of paper somewhere.If you are speaking in broad terms- sorry. Guns are here. Like it or not, they exist. You can pass all the laws you want, but they will continue to exist ad-infinitum, in spite of any law, as long as there is a market for them. They will continue to be precisely as accessible as they are now to anyone who seeks to purchase one, regardless of whatever the "law" says.Try logging onto any given machinists forum, and click on the "gunsmith" subheading (there will always be one on any machinists forum) You would probably crap your pants when you see what ordinary people with $1250 worth of machine-tools can manufacture in their garages. (and that doesn't even start to address the 290,000,000 fully operational firearms that are already here. Two hundred and ninety million of them. Passing a stupid philosophical "law" to address this is like trying to stop a hurricane storm surge by bailing seawater with a thimble. )

[7upncider 0]

Is that the best you can do?

hahaha Well I dont have nothing to prove. Your the one saying that guns kill people by themselves what else needs to be said.

[scram 1]

same goes for you...is that the best you can do?

Are you just going to make a bunch of retarded statements, back them up with absolute garbage, then limit your replies to saying "Is that the best you can do"?Because if so, I'd suggest taking a nap.

[aadams_22 3]

hahaha Well I dont have nothing to prove. Your the one saying that guns kill people by themselves what else needs to be said.

Are you honestly that damn stupid and delusional? If you are I feel vehemently (ooops another big word) sorry for you.

[aadams_22 3]

Are you just going to make a bunch of retarded statements, back them up with absolute garbage, then limit your replies to saying "Is that the best you can do"?Because if so, I'd suggest taking a nap.

I gave you my source...let's see one from you from the FBI that corroborates (damn I'm on a roll here) your statements. I mean, if mine are obviously wrong then that shouldn't be a problem.sw