The Gun Debate

[WrongWay 0]

Why not make narcotics legal? I mean, only stupid people would overdose.Accidents never happen to smart people.

Many people would love to see an end to this silly "war on drugs" that cuases way more probelms than it solves. Holland has some of the most liberal drug laws in the world, and some of the loset usage rates.When will people figure out that making something illegal does not stop it.What stops problems is dealing with the poor, the disaffected, the hero worship of thugs, the under class that feels it has nothing to lose... and in most cases it pretty much correct.Let's deal with the problems of this country instead of the symptoms.... Oh, I forgot, the easy answeres, like gun control and a war on drugs are so much easier than really dealing with the very complex issues.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Accidents happen all of the time, for many reasons, all for the most part out of our control- which is really what this is about. Control. I realzie that it isn't possible. You- and others like you- think that control is possible if we clamp down on people enough, make rules left and right, just excercise more controla dn the world will be a safer place. Wrong. Accidetnts do happen to smart people. Smart people just realize that that is part of life, there is no reason to get all panicky and tie up peoples liberties.

Wow, talk about assumptions. You have no idea what I think. And yeah, the accidents never happen to smart people comment was sarcasm...I thought that would be easily recognizable.

[Kwest4chipz 0]

The fact of the matter is it has nothing to do with guns...It has to do with parenting. I'm an old timer....When I was little we left our doors unlocked, knew everyone on our block, and ate with the family. (yanno, be home by 6pm, YOU ARE EATING DINNER WITH THE FAMILY). I'm not saying that some families don't still live with good rules and a good upbringing. What I'm saying is that they are few and far between. Its only been worse in the last few decades where kids are put in time out, (I got spanked. Wooden spoon, or big hand), I don't expect this to be a popular opinion but we've raised at least 2 generations of whiny little bit ches. That coupled with the drugs we are feeding kids for all the new maladies that afflict them, (that were never around when I was growing up), kinda makes me wonder if the drugs that are "sposed" to make these kids better aren't completely fu**ing them up. We suck at raising families anymore, there are no morals, no values....you watch MTV and see this spoiled little brats and their Sweet 16 parties costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it makes me seriously ill. The media also has a heavy hand in the degeneration of kids nowadays, The Simple Life for example. It was kind of funny to me, because I know what work is and that you have to work, (sometimes crappy jobs), to pay the bills. To the age group of kids watching this garbage though, its a different story. Basically mocking people in different jobs for not being in a job that pays 6 figures, I realize its tv and its scripted, but I really think its not a good message to be sending. I just think that more of these horrible tragedies are inevitably going to happen again, every newer generation is more ****ed in the head than the last. Until we start actually interacting with our children and not having television raise them its a trend I don't see ending anytime soon. 20 years ago alot of the stuff that was taboo is now mainstream and widely acceptable. Just about any deviant behavior that was frowned upon now is accepted with open arms today, and if you speak up against it, the first thing you hear is how close minded you are. Give me a ****ing break. They better not take away our right to bear arms, its not the guns killing people its the freaking fruitcakes being raised by crappy parents that are killing other people.

[nutzbuster 7]

I have 2 guns.An AK 47 Israeli assault rifle and a 9MM Browning High Power.But here is the rub.I was trained for 3 years as a marksman and was an Air Force top secret security courier. The point is I was TRAINED to use these firearms and am fully aware of the awesome responsibility you take on when owning a firearm. I have the utmost respect for the weapons and what it means to own them.The problem with todays laws is that they are not enforced and do not (in many cases) require a person to go thru mandatory psych evaluation and weapons training prior to purchasing a firearm. I agree with some that they are too easy to attain without proper training.However, everyone has a right to defend their home and property as they see fit, it is a inherent American right. And an across the board gun ban is an unrealistic idea. It just simply would not work (too many guns out there already) and would leave many folks feeling defenseless. It would not solve the problem.The problem is not the gun, it's the people with the gun....or the knife...or the car...or the axe...or the can of gasoline...etc.The problem is Psychological, not mechanical. I don't think banning guns will stop the next one from happening...it will only make the victims that much more defenseless. And I am sickened by what has happened. But put just one gun on any one of those students who were shot and this thing is over before 30 more lives are lost.This responsible, law abiding gun owner is praying for everyone who is in mourning tonight....

[Warpig 0]

The fact of the matter is it has nothing to do with guns...It has to do with parenting. I'm an old timer....When I was little we left our doors unlocked, knew everyone on our block, and ate with the family. (yanno, be home by 6pm, YOU ARE EATING DINNER WITH THE FAMILY). I'm not saying that some families don't still live with good rules and a good upbringing. What I'm saying is that they are few and far between. Its only been worse in the last few decades where kids are put in time out, (I got spanked. Wooden spoon, or big hand), I don't expect this to be a popular opinion but we've raised at least 2 generations of whiny little bit ches. That coupled with the drugs we are feeding kids for all the new maladies that afflict them, (that were never around when I was growing up), kinda makes me wonder if the drugs that are "sposed" to make these kids better aren't completely fu**ing them up. We suck at raising families anymore, there are no morals, no values....you watch MTV and see this spoiled little brats and their Sweet 16 parties costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it makes me seriously ill. The media also has a heavy hand in the degeneration of kids nowadays, The Simple Life for example. It was kind of funny to me, because I know what work is and that you have to work, (sometimes crappy jobs), to pay the bills. To the age group of kids watching this garbage though, its a different story. Basically mocking people in different jobs for not being in a job that pays 6 figures, I realize its tv and its scripted, but I really think its not a good message to be sending. I just think that more of these horrible tragedies are inevitably going to happen again, every newer generation is more ****ed in the head than the last. Until we start actually interacting with our children and not having television raise them its a trend I don't see ending anytime soon. 20 years ago alot of the stuff that was taboo is now mainstream and widely acceptable. Just about any deviant behavior that was frowned upon now is accepted with open arms today, and if you speak up against it, the first thing you hear is how close minded you are. Give me a ****ing break. They better not take away our right to bear arms, its not the guns killing people its the freaking fruitcakes being raised by crappy parents that are killing other people.

Finally someone who knows what he's talking about.

[jmkiser 0]

The fact of the matter is it has nothing to do with guns...It has to do with parenting. I'm an old timer....When I was little we left our doors unlocked, knew everyone on our block, and ate with the family. (yanno, be home by 6pm, YOU ARE EATING DINNER WITH THE FAMILY). I'm not saying that some families don't still live with good rules and a good upbringing. What I'm saying is that they are few and far between. Its only been worse in the last few decades where kids are put in time out, (I got spanked. Wooden spoon, or big hand), I don't expect this to be a popular opinion but we've raised at least 2 generations of whiny little bit ches. That coupled with the drugs we are feeding kids for all the new maladies that afflict them, (that were never around when I was growing up), kinda makes me wonder if the drugs that are "sposed" to make these kids better aren't completely fu**ing them up. We suck at raising families anymore, there are no morals, no values....you watch MTV and see this spoiled little brats and their Sweet 16 parties costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it makes me seriously ill. The media also has a heavy hand in the degeneration of kids nowadays, The Simple Life for example. It was kind of funny to me, because I know what work is and that you have to work, (sometimes crappy jobs), to pay the bills. To the age group of kids watching this garbage though, its a different story. Basically mocking people in different jobs for not being in a job that pays 6 figures, I realize its tv and its scripted, but I really think its not a good message to be sending. I just think that more of these horrible tragedies are inevitably going to happen again, every newer generation is more ****ed in the head than the last. Until we start actually interacting with our children and not having television raise them its a trend I don't see ending anytime soon. 20 years ago alot of the stuff that was taboo is now mainstream and widely acceptable. Just about any deviant behavior that was frowned upon now is accepted with open arms today, and if you speak up against it, the first thing you hear is how close minded you are. Give me a ****ing break. They better not take away our right to bear arms, its not the guns killing people its the freaking fruitcakes being raised by crappy parents that are killing other people.

I would agree that times are different from "way back when". Both for good and bad. The answer isn't going backwards. Even when you were being raised, there were still psycho kids that did psycho things. Obviously, nowadays, we have tons MORE kids who can do tons worse things and media coverage that isn't going to miss it like the only 3 news channels would when you were growing up. Add the internet into the equation and I can find the rate of dropping leaves in China (over-exaggeration, but you get the point).We would be wrong to look at the situation in VTech and act like there's something that needs to change because of it. Crap like that happens. We have huge problems in this country that are ever continuing (problems that go beyond VTech) and need to be solved, but you're never going to solve enough problems when all it takes is 1 out of 300 millionish people to lose it and kill a bunch of innocent people. Your dream of children being brought up just like they were back in your day isn't going to stop or slow down the next VTech incident.We are a country of one-bit news stories. Very few people can look out our society and, generally, see the overall problems that need to be addressed. Something like this happens and your hear outcries of "crazy kids need better parents" or "we need to get the guns out of these people's hands" or "people should be allowed to carry (a gun) on campus to stop these situations from escalating" etc. At the end of the day, nothing gets solved.. nothing changes... and none of the problems even come close to being addressed.So let's keep the discussion going as civilized people. What are the problems that need to be addressed? How are we going to address them? You say raising our kids in old conservative values is the way to go. Why? What is it going to do for our future? What will be different if everyone took that route? How would it even be possible to put such ideas into action? Is it even realistic? Maybe there is a broader way to go about what you're speaking of. My response would be better education of real life. And I'm not talking about more math or social studies... I'm talking about real human life. Where are the classes on dealing with personal stress? How about the education of our youth on domestic life? Maybe what the schools cover isn't it enough now that times have changed. Maybe along with math, english, science, history, P.E, etc. .. we also teach human psychology (not as an extra, but as a class required for graduation). On the side, though, most of these issues are things that parents are supposed to be teaching their kids. What do we do about those that aren't? Is it our responsibility to do anything in those lives that aren't our own? Do we look to the government, do we look to the community, or should we not even look at all because it's not our right to infringe? This all bigger then a debate on the legality of gun status or any other issue. You name it... border security, abortion, gay marriage, minimum wage, taxes, etc. Those things don't all mean nothing, but if our only focus as a country is in this nature... we're never going to get to the root of anything. I think the first step to a better society is a brighter and more responsible people. The biggest thing is to get people to talk/critically think and to continue to always do so. And joining a political side about what you think is right issue by issue is not doing either of that.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Just the opinions of an outsider looking in, so take these with a pinch of salt...Single biggest fact that needs to be remembered... More US citizens are dying in gun related incidents (homicide, suicide and accidental) than other comparable countries eg Canada, Great Britain, Australia. Around 50 times more per head of population.So if today 1 person gets murdered in Britain with a gun, 250+ will die in America. Britain has 1 person for every 5 in AmericaIf today for a single accidental death invovling a gun in Australia, 750+ will die in America. Australia has 1 person for every 15 in America.You folks have a problem that is undeniably related to guns. It would only seem sensible to reduce the number of guns, but hey common sense is over-rated sometimes.The theme here for the pro-gun lot seems to be that the thing to do to prevent gun crimes is to give more people guns Surely a common gun crime is a criminal taking your wallet. 3 scenarios:1) Guns are a lot harder to get and less in number. He robs you armed with knife. You give him the wallet and he runs off.2) Guns are as easy and common as they currently are. He robs you armed with a gun. You give him the wallet and he runs off.3) Guns are as easy and common as they currently are and you have decided that you must carry a gun because it is your 'right' and you have to 'protect your family'. He robs you armed with a gun. You pull out yours. Shots are fired. Someone or both of you dies or is injured. It is likely that it is you.Yes, there are alternative ways the above could pan out, but really these are the most likely turn of events.Someone mentioned drowning in pools and it not being sensible to ban swimming pools as an analogy. You can't legislate against things like that. Well Australia had the same problem, so they legislated that if you have a pool you had to put a gated fence around it. Pain in the butt, costs money, rights removed etc etc but people get to keep their pools and less kids die. Common sense.Of course feel free to dismiss these as the ramblings of a nosy foreigner who knows nothing about 'how it is in America'. Won't bother me, how we do things outside of the states is definately not always right, but then again its not my friends and family that are getting shot.

[asytnik 0]

1) Guns are a lot harder to get and less in number. He robs you armed with knife. You give him the wallet and he runs off.2) Guns are as easy and common as they currently are. He robs you armed with a gun. You give him the wallet and he runs off.

1) What makes you believe that by banning guns criminals will start using knives instead? A gun ban will just open up a black market and they'll still be able to get them. Drugs are illegal here, and it's easier for an 18 year old to get cocaine then a 6pack of booze.2) Once he runs of you shoot him dead and get your wallet back.Not to mention, by reducing guns, criminals with illegal guns will feel much more safer robbing law-abiding citizens knowing full well that they are not armed.

[KramitDaToad 0]

1) What makes you believe that by banning guns criminals will start using knives instead? A gun ban will just open up a black market and they'll still be able to get them. Drugs are illegal here, and it's easier for an 18 year old to get cocaine then a 6pack of booze.

I didn't say ban guns. I said if guns are harder to get and less in number. If gun numbers were significantly reduced it would be harder to get them. I am guessing that if you reduced the number of guns available by 50% it would be, I don't know, maybe twice as hard, for criminals to aquire them to use.Likewise if requirements for ownership were stricter, less criminals would be armed. Not to say there wouldn't be any, just less. In that scenario I've suggested a knife, but you can use baseball bat, crowbar or banana too. Whatever floats your boat.

2) Once he runs of you shoot him dead and get your wallet back.

This is the idiotic chest-thumping thinking that is fuelling the problem. Nice.

Not to mention, by reducing guns, criminals with illegal guns will feel much more safer robbing law-abiding citizens knowing full well that they are not armed.

Exactly and a less nervous robber is a lot less likely to shoot you.The vast majority of criminals don't want to hurt or kill as this makes them bigger targets for arresting. They want to take your money and run. Arming the population does not reduce their numbers, it just makes the crims more trigger happy.

[solderz 0]

The vast majority of criminals don't want to hurt or kill as this makes them bigger targets for arresting. They want to take your money and run. Arming the population does not reduce their numbers, it just makes the crims more trigger happy.

So your argument is that we should lay down and let them take our stuff to avoid getting shot? There are people like you who would rather let a bully have their way, and there are people who are going to stand up and punch the bully in the face. Or in this case, shoot him. I beleive it is better to stand up to bullies, or robbers in this case. I own a nine millimeter semi-automatic hand gun and had to use it to scare away a burglar in my house 3 years ago. To be honest, at the time I didn't even think about it. I heard someone in my house and I immediately went for my gun. If I was unable to own a gun, not sure what I would have done. I certainly wouldn't have let him rob my house. I would have grabbed a baseball bat and went at him, which probably wouldn't have been a whole lot safer for me.To summarize: your argument is flawed.

[KramitDaToad 0]

So your argument is that we should lay down and let them take our stuff to avoid getting shot? There are people like you who would rather let a bully have their way, and there are people who are going to stand up and punch the bully in the face. Or in this case, shoot him. I beleive it is better to stand up to bullies, or robbers in this case. I own a nine millimeter semi-automatic hand gun and had to use it to scare away a burglar in my house 3 years ago. To be honest, at the time I didn't even think about it. I heard someone in my house and I immediately went for my gun. If I was unable to own a gun, not sure what I would have done. I certainly wouldn't have let him rob my house. I would have grabbed a baseball bat and went at him, which probably wouldn't have been a whole lot safer for me.To summarize: your argument is flawed.

Who said anything about laying down. There are other ways to fight crime. All I am suggesting is an environment that reduces the number of confrontations involving guns. You know, like other countries have managed.

[asytnik 0]

I didn't say ban guns. I said if guns are harder to get and less in number. If gun numbers were significantly reduced it would be harder to get them. I am guessing that if you reduced the number of guns available by 50% it would be, I don't know, maybe twice as hard, for criminals to aquire them to use.Likewise if requirements for ownership were stricter, less criminals would be armed. Not to say there wouldn't be any, just less. In that scenario I've suggested a knife, but you can use baseball bat, crowbar or banana too. Whatever floats your boat.This is the idiotic chest-thumping thinking that is fuelling the problem. Nice.Exactly and a less nervous robber is a lot less likely to shoot you.The vast majority of criminals don't want to hurt or kill as this makes them bigger targets for arresting. They want to take your money and run. Arming the population does not reduce their numbers, it just makes the crims more trigger happy.

So the base of this argument here is to make criminals feel more safe in robbing us? I don't get it. If a criminal wants to rob me or break into my home to cause harm to myself and my family I believe it is my right as a citizen to do something about it.Ok so the vast majority of criminals just wants to rob you and bail. But what about the few who want to inflict as much pain and agony as possible? Yes it's rare, but it can happen. The vast majority of double homicides don't result in mass murders either, and we've seen what relying on "best case" scenarios can happen. Some of us like to think in terms of "worst case" instead.See the Wichita crimes for example(here. If even one of those victims was armed they would have had a far greater chance of surviving instead of being executed. If even one of the VT students was armed(fully licensed, background-checked, NRA trained etc) Cho Heung-Sui would not have killed as many.Reducing guns by 50% as you claim will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns that's true. But being "harder" and impossible are two different things. They will still have them.Perhaps this issue will never be put to rest, and the best thing we can do is just agree to disagree and leave it to State rights. I'm just glad I reside in a State where guns will never be outlawed at the State level.

[Zeatrix 0]

What I see here is scary. It is extremely rare to be mugged by a person carrying a gun in Sweden. When I think about it, I've never heard of it. I'm sure there's been incidents, but they are very rare. And if it where to happen, it would be in the news. Anything that has guns involved ends up in the news here, it's that rare. When people are mugged here they are either threatened with violence or with a knife.The only criminals that use guns are the really heavy dudes, the guys robbing banks and armed money transports, not the street thugs.And the point about waiting until the guy runs off before shooting him is just despicable. I sure hope you're kidding. So killing someone is a reasonable punishment for a mere wallet theft?And putting guns in the hands of students so they can defend themselves if they are shoot upon? Are you crazy? So you think it will solve the problem to put MORE guns in the hands of people? That is just utterly WRONG in the strongest sense of the word. How anyone can even come close to concluding that after intelligent reasoning is just beyond what I can imagine.Someone wrote that you need to require extensive training before even being considered for buying a gun, now that is a reasonable step in the right direction.

[KramitDaToad 0]

So the base of this argument here is to make criminals feel more safe in robbing us? I don't get it.

It's basic human psychology. Imagine for what ever reason you are going to rob someone. Obviously you are desperate for cash, but regardless you don't want to get into a confrontation. If you know that the people you are robbing won't have guns, would you feel the need to carry one knowing that there are heavier penalties for being caught with one?It might seem a little weird to be make it 'easier' for criminals, but in fact by having a gun you are not changing anything from their perspective. They still need to rob you. They will still do it. It is simply creating the scenario that when a conflict does occur neither side has a gun.I live in South East London at the moment, and whilst it is no 'gangland' crime is a major factor here. Yet very few criminals carry guns and neither do the 'beat' police. And guess what, we do get robbed, yet a lot less people get shot.Don't get me wrong. I don't care for theives or criminals in any sense, and could care less if they had the sh!t kicked out of them or got shot. What I do think is stupid is to think that because you have a gun in your house you are safer when the facts point out that you not. You may 'feel' safer as an individual, but you are in fact part of the problem.If you stop thinking in terms of 'my stereo', 'my house', 'my rights' and starting thinking what needs to happen on a larger scale your single biggest right - your right to life - is less likely to be taken away.

If a criminal wants to rob me or break into my home to cause harm to myself and my family I believe it is my right as a citizen to do something about it.

This is all very good, because it sounds tough and beligerant and very very Hollywood. 'Nobody is going to f*ck with me!!'. Well done big guy, you can walk tall.However I feel as a grown man that I have an obligation to the safety and well being of my family and friends and if 'my right to carry a gun' made it 50 times more likely for them to be shot then I might consider putting my ego in check.

[asytnik 0]

This is all very good, because it sounds tough and beligerant and very very Hollywood. 'Nobody is going to f*ck with me!!'. Well done big guy, you can walk tall.However I feel as a grown man that I have an obligation to the safety and well being of my family and friends and if 'my right to carry a gun' made it 50 times more likely for them to be shot then I might consider putting my ego in check.

How is it "very very Hollywood" when there are hundreds if not thousands of cases every year where the criminal has every intent of killing you regardless of what you give him? Maybe it's not as common in the UK or Sweden, but we have plenty of sick ****s here who will do just that. Again it just goes back to that best-case scenario where you happily give away your wallet to the robber and he is later caught by the cops

[scram 1]

We've now entered the part of the debate where Europeans log on and say "Ufdah! I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU HAVE THIS FREEDOM! YOU NEED MORE GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL TO SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELVES! WHO CARES IF 72,000,000 PEOPLE ENJOY THIS RIGHT AND DO NOTHING WRONG. YOU MUST PANDER YOUR LAWS TO THE WORST AMONGST YOU SO MORE PEOPLE CAN "FEEL" SAFE!".The concept of freedom and individual liberty has been so far beaten out of these people that I'm convinced it entirely fails to exist anywhere on the continent, save for a few hold-out enclaves. It's like- generations upon generations upon generations of them have taught their children to think as a "collective" rather than individuals, so things that represent individual choice and responsibility are viewed as a nuisance instead of a treasured right. Yup, they have lower gun crime and they also don't have the right to own guns. What they just don't understand is that "reducing the number of guns" isn't really a goal of Americans, as we view the right to own them and the philosophy that represents as being more important than preventing the acts of the microscopic statistical anomaly, who, may make the "news" for you all to hear about, but in reality, represents an insignificant blip. Things like VT aside- which are tragic to the bones- when you examine the spectrum of our gun crime deeper than just "the numbers" and start to see who is actually committing said crime, you realize that the problem has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with "crime".

[scram 1]

Prior to VT, the worst mass shooting in US History was Lubys Cafeteria in Texas.This is the Congressional testimony of someone who was there that day and watched as both of her parents were murdered.

[KramitDaToad 0]

We've now entered the part of the debate where Europeans log on and say "Ufdah! I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU HAVE THIS FREEDOM! YOU NEED MORE GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL TO SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELVES! WHO CARES IF 72,000,000 PEOPLE ENJOY THIS RIGHT AND DO NOTHING WRONG. YOU MUST PANDER YOUR LAWS TO THE WORST AMONGST YOU SO MORE PEOPLE CAN "FEEL" SAFE!".The concept of freedom and individual liberty has been so far beaten out of these people that I'm convinced it entirely fails to exist anywhere on the continent, save for a few hold-out enclaves. It's like- generations upon generations upon generations of them have taught their children to think as a "collective" rather than individuals, so things that represent individual choice and responsibility are viewed as a nuisance instead of a treasured right. Yup, they have lower gun crime and they also don't have the right to own guns. What they just don't understand is that "reducing the number of guns" isn't really a goal of Americans, as we view the right to own them and the philosophy that represents as being more important than preventing the acts of the statistical anomaly. Things like VT aside- which are tragic to the bones- when you examine the spectrum of our gun crime deeper than just "the numbers" and start to see who is actually committing said crime, you realize that the problem has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with "crime".

So what you are saying is even though an average of 50 times more people per capita die in gun related incidents than other countries, it's not a concern because it's actually the criminals that are doing it and we can't stop them getting guns. Riiiiiiight.And what's with your anti-euro rant. You really that small?For the record I am neither European nor American, yet I have lived in both. They are both wonderful places, but don't think for 1 second that America has a better way of life.

[asytnik 0]

And putting guns in the hands of students so they can defend themselves if they are shoot upon? Are you crazy? So you think it will solve the problem to put MORE guns in the hands of people? That is just utterly WRONG in the strongest sense of the word. How anyone can even come close to concluding that after intelligent reasoning is just beyond what I can imagine.

Why is this so crazy and far-fetched? In my State of New Hampshire I can, by law, carry my concealed handgun with me to anywhere but a courthouse. This is at the state level. At the federal level I can't carry my gun into any federal building or school zone (this does NOT apply to the college level). So I can, by law, go into my university(UNH) and not commit any crime. Of course I can be kicked out of school if I get caught, so obviously I'd never attempt it. I'm NRA trained, have no criminal background, and I'm also military confidential cleared. I'm not bragging, I'm just saying there are quite a few people out there that pose no danger to society, but at the same time can possibly protect other citizens. Have a few students with these credentials and better(ROTC students for example) in every hall, and the Cho's of this world are not as successful in their attempts. I think this is a far better solution than having kids hop out of windows while their professor gets gunned down.VT isn't the first case, and it won't be the last. Banning guns will only hurt more innocent people.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Banning guns will only hurt more innocent people.

You see, you have the small problem that in countries where there are less guns per person, and it is harder to get and keep a gun, less innocent people are hurt.What is so hard to understand about that?

[asytnik 0]

You see, you have the small problem that in countries where there are less guns per person, and it is harder to get and keep a gun, less innocent people are hurt.What is so hard to understand about that?

Because other countries != United States of America.Apples. Oranges.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Because other countries != United States of America.Apples. Oranges.

Oh that makes all the difference Fine. I'll lament my lack of freedom.You bury your dead.

[Miguel McHarris 0]

Wow things got out of control.The job of our gov't is to protect us. They can't do it 24hrs a day, it's impossible. Responsible law abiding citizens should be allowed to protect themselves. Banning hand guns would only create a black market for it much like prohibition did for alcohol in the 1920s. The laws in Virginia should be toughened a little. You shouldn't be allowed to walk into a gun dealer and out the same day with a firearm. If you feel everyone should be armed you're assuming that everyone knows how to use a gun and that they're also a decent shot. Bad assumption. My opinion is to leave the laws as they are. There is nothing wrong with them. Oh and to the Brits who keep lamenting how safe their country is: Your gun crime was actually up 6% in 2005 and violent crime was up 12% in 2004. Have things changed that much in a couple of years? I doubt it, here's the BBC link

[KramitDaToad 0]

Oh and to the Brits who keep lamenting how safe their country is: Your gun crime was actually up 6% in 2005 and violent crime was up 12% in 2004. Have things changed that much in a couple of years? I doubt it, here's the BBC link

1) I'm not British2) Nobody claimed there was any less crime in the UK or that crime wasn't a problem. The statement was that guns are less prolific in the UK, Canada and Australia (chosen because they are socially, culturally and ecomically similar to the US) and people die in gun related incidents massively less frequently than in the States.3) Lamenting was my word. You've used it in the wrong context. Try Dictionary.com

[scram 1]

UK, Canada and Australia (chosen because they are socially, culturally and ecomically similar to the US)

Hahahahahahhahahahaaa.(pause)AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.