gun control

[Stephen]

No one is arguing that.

Really?

It seems as though people are arguing that if guns were banned these heinous mass murders would still be carried out with the use of knives, or torches, or swords.

Color me not convinced it would be as dangerous.

[Ignatius]

Really?

It seems as though people are arguing that if guns were banned these heinous mass murders would still be carried out with the use of knives, or torches, or swords.

Color me not convinced it would be as dangerous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Done.

Now, convince me on how we are even going to START banning guns...let alone preventing them on the black market?

[Stephen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Done.

Now, convince me on how we are even going to START banning guns...let alone preventing them on the black market?

Wonder if it's tougher to get bomb making material today as it was in 1927.

Really, superb argument. Almost bulletproof.

[Ignatius]

Wonder if it's tougher to get bomb making material today as it was in 1927.

Really, superb argument. Almost bulletproof.

It's probably much, much easier to get it now. b00bie, face it....you're a force in the Indians thread, but don't bring weak ass shit to real world stuff. This isn't a game.

Almost bulletproof....nice pun

[Stephen]

It's probably much, much easier to get it now. b00bie, face it....you're a force in the Indians thread, but don't bring weak ass shit to real world stuff. This isn't a game.

Give it a try.

Let me know how that works out for you.

[Jack Brickman]

It's probably much, much easier to get it now. b00bie, face it....you're a force in the Indians thread, but don't bring weak ass shit to real world stuff. This isn't a game.

The dude used dynamite, which could be purchased at stores in 1927. I'm not saying it's not possible to make a bomb today, but it's a hell of a lot more complicated than going to a store and buying dynamite.

[Ignatius]

Give it a try.

Let me know how that works out for you.

I'd rather not.

[Stephen]

The dude used dynamite, which could be purchased at stores in 1927. I'm not saying it's not possible to make a bomb today, but it's a hell of a lot more complicated than going to a store and buying dynamite.

Nope, much easier today.

Get that weak stuff outta here, young man.

[gourimoko]

Like what?

It's simple facts.

Yes, the UK is much smaller than the United States. Their per capita rates of gun violence are still vastly superior.

I'm sorry you have no rebuttals to the fact that the USA is rivaling third world countries in terms of gun related deaths, but to completely discount the countries who figured this problem out 30 years ago is more short sighted than anything.

Boobie, I'm amazed you're not noticing your continued use of the term "gun related." Obviously "gun related" deaths may go down by outlawing guns. But no one is arguing that point as it's not entirely relevant, or entirely true as it took more than 10 years for gun crime in England to decrease after instituting the ban.

But why not address all violent crime as a whole?

Britain has not solved it's crime problems by instituting a gun ban. It just changed the most prevalent means of criminality. You are far more likely to be a victim of robbery, or even worse, a burglary or rape in England than you are in the United States. The incidence of robberies, break-ins, and rapes has drastically increased since the UK Firearms Act. When inmates were polled, they responded that since the UK has made even previously-owned handguns illegal, many feel safer when committing crime rather than the reverse.

I would argue that if more people owned guns, and were trained from an early age how to use them, we might have fewer incidents of break-ins, robberies, rapes, and home invasion. I also think we would be a freer society.

One thing I do want to point out though, which is what I fear the most: the UK's gun ban was a result of the Dunblane Massacre, an incident where a 46-year old man went into an elementary school and shot 16 kids with two 9mm handguns and a .357 magnum. Sound familiar?

[gourimoko]

The dude used dynamite, which could be purchased at stores in 1927. I'm not saying it's not possible to make a bomb today, but it's a hell of a lot more complicated than going to a store and buying dynamite.

You can go to the store and buy fertilizer.






But I do get your point...

[gourimoko]

Really? I like my chances to win a fight alot better. Not sure about you.

Ever heard the term "don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

Same principle applies. Knives are far less dangerous than guns, arguing otherwise is the furthest thing from a valid point.

Just thought I'd point something out. Living here in Hawaii, guns are fairly rare in Honolulu or on Oahu in general. However, crime is prevalent. There are gangs, and drug dealers/addicts in the streets and they are brazen. I'm not talking about in ghettos or low-income areas.. I'm talking about Waikiki, a tourist town. I've seen more than several incidents of a guy getting jumped while walking his girl down the street just because he was in his dress blues. Every criminal here carries a switchblade -- all of them. They are not afraid of stabbing or being stabbed, as to them, it's part of the process.

I feel safer walking through East Cleveland simply because people know to mind their own fucking business than walking through parts of Honolulu. The primary difference? In EC you have no idea whether or not I've got a .38 in my pocket. In Hawaii, the criminals walk around with impunity and police are stretched thin protecting tourist areas leaving the more urban areas like Kalihi, Nuuanu, Waipahu, etc to gang violence. Drugs, murder, and plenty of robbery, rapes, and burglaries - but not necessarily gun related.

edit:

Boobie, I honestly respect your point of view, I'm just trying to get you to understand that there is a logical counterargument that's not tied to irrationality or tradition or fear; but a reasonable desire to want to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your freedom. Like Max said earlier, I don't necessarily think the government will collapse one day, or a tyrant will come into the White House - but I am at least somewhat prepared if such an event took place.

Think about what happened in 2007/08. If the government bail-out had not happened and the Fed had forced many of those banks to show their books in bankruptcy, the entire monetary system of the world, which is entirely built on trust (an intangible concept, not an impregnable fortress), could have collapsed. In such an environment, I don't want to be prey to gangs where numbers of men makes the difference between living and dying (or worse).

Even if we take the worst case scenario off the table, I'd like to protect my home, and my family from a burglar. What am I to do in the instance someone breaks into my home? I'm a big guy, but what if he's carrying a knife or what if there's three of them? What if they don't just want my stuff, what if they want my daughter, what then? Should I call the cops and wait, or should I do whatever I can to protect what's most dear? I have the God-given right to protect my home, my family, my freedom, and my life. As Optimus would say, the government nor the People can either give or take that right away, as it is inherently mine. We as a society recognize these rights, whether or not we always agree with how people choose to exercise them or, in many cases, choose not to.

Our American society is special in that way. Australians are compelled to vote, Europeans don't generally have freedom of speech, Britons cannot own firearms, the list goes on... As Tylons said, days like yesterday may just be the cost of living in a free society. There are things that can be done, like improving the quality of life for everyone, embracing our culture, fighting against apathetic citizenry, complacency, and cynicism. We can make a difference, I'm sure.

My only point is that we shouldn't use tragedies such as these as a means of restricting the freedoms of law-abiding citizens. Adam Lanza did not purchase the firearms used, he stole them. He had a history of mental illness and wasn't even old enough to buy a handgun (21 yrs minimum) in Connecticut. So I do object to the idea that somehow, only if we had 'more sensible' restrictions on firearms, 20 kids would not have been butchered. Hope I'm getting my point across...

[cafemerald]

The dude used dynamite, which could be purchased at stores in 1927. I'm not saying it's not possible to make a bomb today, but it's a hell of a lot more complicated than going to a store and buying dynamite.

Actually IEDs today are much more stable than explosives from the early 20th century. It isn't hard to get what you need. Especially in todays online market.

The Oklahoma City Bombing and mailbox explosives killed quite a few people in recent past.

[Stephen Docking]

I guess I'm going to go buy some more guns with my tax refund before they become illegal.

I've never been to a gun show. Are they any fun, can you get good deals, bypass the background checks on things like silencers?

[MattyFos.]

No wonder Jacky didn't like The Dark Knight Rises... Dude is an idiot.

[Jack Brickman]

Actually IEDs today are much more stable than explosives from the early 20th century. It isn't hard to get what you need. Especially in todays online market.

The Oklahoma City Bombing and mailbox explosives killed quite a few people in recent past.

It takes a hell of a lot more knowledge to make an IED than it does to go to a store and buy dynamite.