[SenorPickle]

There are situations where crises could have been averted had guns not been in the picture. Take the following example: Man kills masked teen, learn's it's his son.

Had the man not had the gun and instead done the correct thing and called the police maybe that would have gone differently.

Consider California, Alaska, Massachusetts, and Texas. California had the most gun-related murders in the country in 2010 (thanks Oakland!), Texas came in 2nd, Massachusetts 3rd, and Alaska Last. One could attribute this to sheer population difference, which makes sense, however there are some interesting things to pull from that information:

Gun violence does not appear to correlate to population density, rather it correlates to things like local poverty levels, education, and social status. That isn't prejudice, its statistics. Also: stricter gun control laws, such as those imposed by Massachusetts, do appear to lower gun-related crimes. That said, the percentage of murder done by firearms vs. other means in Massachusetts still lies at ~60%, right around the average for the nation.

Point being, if you're trying to prevent irrational acts by irrational people with things like stricter gun control you're missing the point. A person that gets the idea to murder a bunch of innocent children is not going to be dissuaded by the illegality or lack of ease of availability of guns. Someone mentioned earlier they owned a crossbow. A crossbow or compound bow in the right hands could easily inflict as much mayhem, except without alerting anybody.

So ultimately we can't just say stricter gun control, we can't just say everyone turn in their guns, that just won't solve the problem because its a much deeper problem. Lowering gun violence is going to come from better education, better social programs, and providing jobs and boosting failing local economies.

That said: NONE OF THAT WILL STOP CRAZY PEOPLE FROM DOING HORRIBLE THINGS. Look at Ted Kaczynski, Dennis Lynn Rader, etc. One thing I think is apparent is that the media creates this potential for the crazy and narcissistic to mark their place and get their 15 minutes. I imagine if they didn't have a gun they'd find a way.

Sources:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-us-state#data

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/nei...violence/4171/

[KillerBug]

had the most gun-related murders

The strange part is that gun violence is talked about as a whole separate area...violence is violence.

Stab your wife: She dies
Shoot your wife: She dies
Strangle your wife: She dies
Beat your wife with a bat for an hour: She dies

Check out the per capita murder rates...they don't jive with the gun murder numbers. The top three murder states per capita are some of the lowest gun murder states. Murder is murder, it doesn't matter how you do it.

Here in Florida we have special laws for guns...people get stabbed and the sentence ends up being shorter than the minimum sentence for just pointing a gun at someone. Where is the logic in that?
************* [ - Post Merged - ] *************

Originally Posted by Mistawes I don't see what's wrong with law enforcement having weapons, for the minute number of people they wrongfully kill, to protect the masses and reduce the possibility of mass murders of defenseless people.

Defenseless people...like law biding citizens that turned in their guns? A gun takes under a second to work...the police take half an hour to show up.

Originally Posted by Mistawes I'd trust them a lot more than Tom, D!ck or Harry.

Personally, I don't trust them as a whole...and I certainly don't trust the honest ones to stop a shooting; their job is to investigate the murder after it happens. Did they stop the school shootings?

Originally Posted by Mistawes Disabling people using non-lethal methods is an option

In some cases it is better to use "less lethal" methods, but it isn't always an option. I'm not about to carry around a bunch of different less lethal weapons for whatever circumstance I find myself needing them...a tiny little 38 does the job in just about any circumstance.

Originally Posted by Mistawes And all these brave people saying they'd headshot anyone who would pull this shiz.. Well it hasn't happened yet, and you have all the guns you want!

It has happened many times...you just don't hear about it because it isn't a bloodbath. CNN isn't going to run with a story of some crack head getting blasted.

Originally Posted by Mistawes Imagine a cinema/school/whatevercomesnext full of people firing in panic.

I agree people should use guns in a responsible manner and should have proper training. Yeah...I can imagine that joker guy busting into the theatur with a gun and having half the viewers throwing lead at him.

Originally Posted by Mistawes If there was one security guard with a gun that would have been plenty

I'd rather not trust my safety to some guy who couldn't even get onto the police force who is on the other side of a megaplex, and who knows he can go home to his family by simply staying where he is.

Originally Posted by Mistawes or even if they were restricted to your own property or an overall limit, it'd be a start. Were does your right end, bearing arms and propelling an object towards another person/people is my issue.

The same old issue exists there...criminals won't follow the laws anyway. Becides, your wallet is your property, isn't it? As for an overall limit, if you mean capabilities then there already are limits...no armor piercing rounds (except for criminals), no automatic rifles (except for criminals). If you mean the number of guns, what's the point? How many guns can you use at once? Are you going to tell a collector that he needs to give up his collection because you are only allowed to have twice as many guns as you need to do a bloodbath? Are you going to tell someone with a shotgun, a rifle, and a handgun that he has to pick which of the three he is to keep?

Originally Posted by Mistawes Is it fine and dandy to protect yourself with a surface to air missile?

That's the whole point of anti-missile batteries. We are giving them to Turkey to protect themselves. If there were crack heads with fighter jets you would probably have people trying to buy these.

Originally Posted by Mistawes Or lets all gets Nukes!

A nuke is not a targetted weapon, a land mine is not targetted, a bomb is not targetted. A gun is.

[QUOTE=Mistawes;501718]
Something to protect you within striking distance should suffice
[quote]
What is striking distance? If your attacker has a gun then striking distance is the range of that gun. A good rifle can kill from a mile away.

Originally Posted by Mistawes Preventing street crime, by giving everyone guns isn't the most efficient method imo. I'm not saying there's a perfect solution, but cutting down is a start.

Reducing guns actually increases street crime...in spite of your opinion. If you want to start increasing street crime by limiting weapons, I want to be in a different state.

Originally Posted by Mistawes And seriously, thinking other huge countries are worried about citizens having a few guns, they don't seem plan on walking the streets fighting fire with fire.. It'll come from the sky!

That kind of scenario goes beyond the range of a gun control discussion...they throw nukes, we throw nukes, china throws nukes, east europe thows nukes, and the sun becomes the second most radioactive body in the solar system. Mututally assured destruction...throw a nuke, get nuked...kinda like opening fire in a casino...you are gonna get shot.

[Mistawes]

Alright, no big deal.

[fanboysarestupid]

Originally Posted by Wolfie708 Guns make it easier though.

Originally Posted by Annelies He wouldn't have killed as many people as he did if he didn't have guns and he would have been stopped a lot sooner -- assuming he wouldn't have taken his own life with a knife or something.

Both of you forget that if he didn't had a pistol/gun, he'd still have another weapon in possession since it isn't hard to get.

A grenade or a poisonous weapon would've killed even more people than he originally killed.

[screwhead]

If not a gun they will just use something else. As an American it si my god given right to own a gun to protect my property and family not to kill others in malice. America was or still is the worlds biggest gun dealer, our soldiers have weapons that we sold used against them everyday. That cat killed his own mother with her gun. I pray for the families and for the survivors.

[crazelunatic]

People who are pro gun seem to think in black & white terms labeling criminal and "good citizen". Lets not forget that the perpetrator of the aurora massacre had no criminal record and had obtained his firearms legally.... In Indiana a man was apprehended with 47 guns and over 100,000 dollars of legally obtained ammunition... The point im trying to make is that we are not gonna arm the entire population.... This is chiefly because there is real paranoia that exists where im sure the person wielding the biggest stick doesnt want the next guy to wield a bigger stick..... I mean where does the execuse of self defense stop us from getting bigger/badder weapons? Do you think a .38 would stand up to some1 who has legally purchased a weapon such an m60 and decides to mow down innocents. People who own weapons are paranoid no matter what they say and selfish @ the sametime. If you want true justice you would say i don't care who's hand's is carrying what weapon since we are all =s as human beings. So what... "criminals" and the "mentally ill" are supposed to be weaponless and left @ the mercy of "sane" individuals who are carrying weapons and can discharge their weapon even though theyve passed a background check which doesn't guarantee if they will have a future psychotic breakdown?

[KillerBug]

Originally Posted by crazelunatic People who are pro gun seem to think in black & white terms labeling criminal and "good citizen". Lets not forget that the perpetrator of the aurora massacre had no criminal record and had obtained his firearms legally.... In Indiana a man was apprehended with 47 guns and over 100,000 dollars of legally obtained ammunition... The point im trying to make is that we are not gonna arm the entire population.... This is chiefly because there is real paranoia that exists where im sure the person wielding the biggest stick doesnt want the next guy to wield a bigger stick..... I mean where does the execuse of self defense stop us from getting bigger/badder weapons? Do you think a .38 would stand up to some1 who has legally purchased a weapon such an m60 and decides to mow down innocents. People who own weapons are paranoid no matter what they say and selfish @ the sametime. If you want true justice you would say i don't care who's hand's is carrying what weapon since we are all =s as human beings. So what... "criminals" and the "mentally ill" are supposed to be weaponless and left @ the mercy of "sane" individuals who are carrying weapons and can discharge their weapon even though theyve passed a background check which doesn't guarantee if they will have a future psychotic breakdown?

OK, you've convinced me...police officers should not be allowed guns because they might have breakdowns in the future.[/sarcasm]

If a person is going to gun down a bunch of people, that person is a criminal...maybe they got their gun legally, but would laws have stopped them from getting a gun illegally? Obviously they don't really care about the law at that point. As for me, I do care...if I shoot someone in self defense, I will wait for the cops, show them my permit, go to the station, and probably spend the night in jail before they are sure I didn't do anything wrong. Not an ideal situation, but better than getting killed, better than spending 10 years inside for having an illegal gun.

M60's are illegal without a special federal permit that even law enforcement has trouble getting...I don't agree with this, but so it is. Considering the argument doesn't seem to include reducing restrictions, we'll just consider that one illegal no matter what way the discussion goes.

A 38 isn't going to take down an army...but a 38 hollow point packs enough punch to stop just about anyone. Yeah, there is a certain feeling of godhood holding a Desert Eagle.50; but a 38 is more than enough for me. If someone with an M60 is facing my way, I'm doing my best to stop him...if he isn't facing my way, I'm doing my best to stop him. An M60 is great for killing a lot of people, a 38 is good at killing one or two people.

[FL321]

Gun Control is Hitting ur Target. Arm the homeless. Never take away people right to to own a gun. We already have laws for them. They just need to leave that alone. Come to the sunshine state. It's all nice and sunny and beach waves. Bikini wearing.



BS this state is shaped like a gun for a reason. Then ull want a gun

[crazelunatic]

OK, you've convinced me...police officers should not be allowed guns because they might have breakdowns in the future.[/sarcasm] If a person is going to gun down a bunch of people, that person is a criminal...maybe they got their gun legally, but would laws have stopped them from getting a gun illegally? Obviously they don't really care about the law at that point. As for me, I do care...if I shoot someone in self defense, I will wait for the cops, show them my permit, go to the station, and probably spend the night in jail before they are sure I didn't do anything wrong. Not an ideal situation, but better than getting killed, better than spending 10 years inside for having an illegal gun. M60's are illegal without a special federal permit that even law enforcement has trouble getting...I don't agree with this, but so it is. Considering the argument doesn't seem to include reducing restrictions, we'll just consider that one illegal no matter what way the discussion goes. A 38 isn't going to take down an army...but a 38 hollow point packs enough punch to stop just about anyone. Yeah, there is a certain feeling of godhood holding a Desert Eagle.50; but a 38 is more than enough for me. If someone with an M60 is facing my way, I'm doing my best to stop him...if he isn't facing my way, I'm doing my best to stop him. An M60 is great for killing a lot of people, a 38 is good at killing one or two people.

Throughout this thread i've advocated for across the board ceasing of ammunition production for guns and yes this includes government agencies and the civil sector being prohibited from purchasing ammo for their guns. As for killerbug this is for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo_Bum-kon Yes but a law that says its illegal has shown that the government is directing its people to better moral obedience.

but would laws have stopped them from getting a gun illegally?

M60's are illegal without a special federal permit that even law enforcement has trouble getting...I don't agree with this, but so it is.

Youve answered your own question.... Because m60s have permits that are difficult to obtain how often have you seen them used in mass murders? But lets say they did obtain the weapon illegally.... If caught thats an extra charge prosecutors would hit them with instead of some1 who went on a rampage legally.

[Wolfie708]

Originally Posted by fanboysarestupid Both of you forget that if he didn't had a pistol/gun, he'd still have another weapon in possession since it isn't hard to get. A grenade or a poisonous weapon would've killed even more people than he originally killed.

Hence my suggestion of sterilizing humanity as a whole lol

We kill, maim, rape, and basically f**k up everyone and everything we come into contact with (as a species), but Any hindrance to that is a beneficial one, and if he hadn't have had a gun, who is to say he could have been bothered to go one of the other routes you suggest? Actually the ones you suggested are unlikely as they are too impersonal, and gun crimes of this nature are typically a personal thing as the one who commits them gets the 'buzz' from it being so intimately direct and involved.

Saying what could happen is pointless after the effect, what did happen could have been limited.......... Simple logical progression