|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On August 01 2012 19:20 hzflank wrote:
Neither you nor I want to kill anyone. It would take something extreme to make us homicidal. In such extreme circumstances would the lack of accessible firearms stop you?
I am all for gun control but I do not think that gun control will prevent murder. Gun control might prevent manslaughter or suicide, but to prevent murder you need to remove the willingness and desire to kill and not just remove the weapons.
So in your world everyone who commits a murder spends days/weeks planning it out pinky and the brain style?
|
I think it has gone too far in america. Now you have so many guns in circulation, it would be impossible to try to stop it, and only criminals would have guns. here the number of guns are so low it's more possible to monitor and try to contain them.
|
On August 01 2012 19:48 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 19:45 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:36 hzflank wrote:
I disagree. I think that if a person wants to commit mass murder then they will find a way to do so. Making explosives is harder than buying guns, but if you are planning to commit mass murder then you will be willing to put in the effort to make explosives.
I have no background in chemistry yet I could still manufacture a small bomb if I wanted to.
In the UK, we have less gun crime because we have less guns. But we have a lot of knife crime instead. People who want to kill will use what weapons are available to them. Such a poorly thought out and ridiculous opinion. If I want to make explosive it takes time, research and planning and a lot of skill to actually use effectively. Buying a gun in the US (or better yet using the one I already own or my parents) does not take those things. Murdering 10s of people in a school shooting style rampage with a knife is logistically impossible. It's also far easier mentally to shoot someone that it is to stab them to death and a person is far more likely to survive a knife attack (or fight off their attacker) than they are if someone uses a gun. All in all it's just far more difficult logistically, mentally and physically to do something like Columbine, Virginia Tech or the Batman Cinema shooting without ready and easy access the firearms. The same could also be said of countless other heat or the moment killings where in the UK a dispute would lead to a fistfight in the US they lead to someone getting shot because people have guns right there and then. Embarrassing that this is coming from a UK resident. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. If someone is determined to do something and they have the willpower, they will achieve it regardless of what they have access to that would potentially make it easier. At most, you'd be buying a little bit of time.
Erm, that's kind of the entire fucking point.
What universe do you live in where everyone who kills someone spends weeks plotting it out?
A white middle class guy like me in the UK would actually find it pretty difficult to get a gun. I'm sure that with enough effort I could, but I wouldn't know where to even start and it would probably involve me going to some very unpleasant places and asking around and maybe over a period of weeks/days I would be able to get one for a lot of money which I then wouldn't have the feintest idea how to shoot properly anyway.
Maybe, just maybe that lack of expertise, financial barrier and time spent buying the gun would lead me to reconsider whether I actually wanted to kill someone.
However if I all I needed to do was pop on down to the nearest supermarket or just look under my bed I wouldn't have quite the same cooling off period.
|
On August 01 2012 19:50 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 19:48 stevarius wrote:On August 01 2012 19:45 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:36 hzflank wrote:
I disagree. I think that if a person wants to commit mass murder then they will find a way to do so. Making explosives is harder than buying guns, but if you are planning to commit mass murder then you will be willing to put in the effort to make explosives.
I have no background in chemistry yet I could still manufacture a small bomb if I wanted to.
In the UK, we have less gun crime because we have less guns. But we have a lot of knife crime instead. People who want to kill will use what weapons are available to them. Such a poorly thought out and ridiculous opinion. If I want to make explosive it takes time, research and planning and a lot of skill to actually use effectively. Buying a gun in the US (or better yet using the one I already own or my parents) does not take those things. Murdering 10s of people in a school shooting style rampage with a knife is logistically impossible. It's also far easier mentally to shoot someone that it is to stab them to death and a person is far more likely to survive a knife attack (or fight off their attacker) than they are if someone uses a gun. All in all it's just far more difficult logistically, mentally and physically to do something like Columbine, Virginia Tech or the Batman Cinema shooting without ready and easy access the firearms. The same could also be said of countless other heat or the moment killings where in the UK a dispute would lead to a fistfight in the US they lead to someone getting shot because people have guns right there and then. Embarrassing that this is coming from a UK resident. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. If someone is determined to do something and they have the willpower, they will achieve it regardless of what they have access to that would potentially make it easier. At most, you'd be buying a little bit of time. Erm, that's kind of the entire fucking point. What universe do you live in where everyone who kills someone spends weeks plotting it out? A white middle class guy like me in the UK would actually find it pretty difficult to get a gun. I'm sure that with enough effort I could, but I wouldn't know where to even start and it would probably involve me going to some very unpleasant places and asking around and maybe over a period of weeks/days I would be able to get one for a lot of money which I then wouldn't have the feintest idea how to shoot properly anyway. Maybe, just maybe that lack of expertise, financial barrier and time spent buying the gun would lead me to reconsider whether I actually wanted to kill someone. However if I all I needed to do was pop on down to the nearest supermarket or just look under my bed I wouldn't have quite the same cooling off period.
This.
Yes there are incidents that are planned weeks ahead and run through mentally multiple times to make sure you got the optimal plan. You won't be able to prevent those easily because as mentioned, people who desperatly want to do something will find a way.
But that's not even the point here. The point is that people apparently think that 100% of homocides are planned through and that's just ridiculous.
There are plently of incidents that happen spontaneous or at least without thinking it through because of some outside trigger and a part of those could be prevented by giving people more time to think.
Picture a robber with a gun in his hand who suddenly realizes that people know he's in their home because he sees a man standing in front of him. He could panic and shoot in an instant. He's scared about his own life as well after all.
Picture the same situation with a knife and it's less likely to be to so severe. As mentioned it takes more "determination" from your part to actually kill someone upfront with a knife and it's way harder to accidently pull the trigger of a knife.
You have more time to think if none of those 2 is armed with a gun.
Picture a kid getting mobbed in school. If he has to make preperations for months he has time to think things through and maybe will come to his senses on his own.
|
Zurich15365 Posts
On August 01 2012 19:48 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 19:45 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:36 hzflank wrote:
I disagree. I think that if a person wants to commit mass murder then they will find a way to do so. Making explosives is harder than buying guns, but if you are planning to commit mass murder then you will be willing to put in the effort to make explosives.
I have no background in chemistry yet I could still manufacture a small bomb if I wanted to.
In the UK, we have less gun crime because we have less guns. But we have a lot of knife crime instead. People who want to kill will use what weapons are available to them. Such a poorly thought out and ridiculous opinion. If I want to make explosive it takes time, research and planning and a lot of skill to actually use effectively. Buying a gun in the US (or better yet using the one I already own or my parents) does not take those things. Murdering 10s of people in a school shooting style rampage with a knife is logistically impossible. It's also far easier mentally to shoot someone that it is to stab them to death and a person is far more likely to survive a knife attack (or fight off their attacker) than they are if someone uses a gun. All in all it's just far more difficult logistically, mentally and physically to do something like Columbine, Virginia Tech or the Batman Cinema shooting without ready and easy access the firearms. The same could also be said of countless other heat or the moment killings where in the UK a dispute would lead to a fistfight in the US they lead to someone getting shot because people have guns right there and then. Embarrassing that this is coming from a UK resident. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. If someone is determined to do something and they have the willpower, they will achieve it regardless of what they have access to that would potentially make it easier. At most, you'd be buying a little bit of time.
Well there is a prominent example of an attempted school shooting in Germany, which ended with only a few people injured - because the shooter didn't have any (effective) guns. He did not apply for a license and wait until he could buy real steel, but did his shooting with freely purchasable antique guns and home made bombs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emsdetten_school_shooting
Obviously he showed enough intent and determination to go through with this. A fact is that with easy access to guns Emsdetten would have to mourn over lots of dead students instead of treat some injured. A fact is that in this case stricter gun laws saved lives, and did not buy some time.
|
|
|
On August 01 2012 22:09 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 19:48 stevarius wrote:On August 01 2012 19:45 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:36 hzflank wrote:
I disagree. I think that if a person wants to commit mass murder then they will find a way to do so. Making explosives is harder than buying guns, but if you are planning to commit mass murder then you will be willing to put in the effort to make explosives.
I have no background in chemistry yet I could still manufacture a small bomb if I wanted to.
In the UK, we have less gun crime because we have less guns. But we have a lot of knife crime instead. People who want to kill will use what weapons are available to them. Such a poorly thought out and ridiculous opinion. If I want to make explosive it takes time, research and planning and a lot of skill to actually use effectively. Buying a gun in the US (or better yet using the one I already own or my parents) does not take those things. Murdering 10s of people in a school shooting style rampage with a knife is logistically impossible. It's also far easier mentally to shoot someone that it is to stab them to death and a person is far more likely to survive a knife attack (or fight off their attacker) than they are if someone uses a gun. All in all it's just far more difficult logistically, mentally and physically to do something like Columbine, Virginia Tech or the Batman Cinema shooting without ready and easy access the firearms. The same could also be said of countless other heat or the moment killings where in the UK a dispute would lead to a fistfight in the US they lead to someone getting shot because people have guns right there and then. Embarrassing that this is coming from a UK resident. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. If someone is determined to do something and they have the willpower, they will achieve it regardless of what they have access to that would potentially make it easier. At most, you'd be buying a little bit of time. Well there is a prominent example of an attempted school shooting in Germany, which ended with only a few people injured - because the shooter didn't have any (effective) guns. He did not apply for a license and wait until he could buy real steel, but did his shooting with freely purchasable antique guns and home made bombs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emsdetten_school_shootingObviously he showed enough intent and determination to go through with this. A fact is that with easy access to guns Emsdetten would have to mourn over lots of dead students instead of treat some injured. A fact is that in this case stricter gun laws saved lives, and did not buy some time.
I completely agree.
The biggest lie we tell ourselves is that people kill people. The statistics alone with the use of guns is hard to deny.
|
On August 01 2012 19:50 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 19:48 stevarius wrote:On August 01 2012 19:45 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:36 hzflank wrote:
I disagree. I think that if a person wants to commit mass murder then they will find a way to do so. Making explosives is harder than buying guns, but if you are planning to commit mass murder then you will be willing to put in the effort to make explosives.
I have no background in chemistry yet I could still manufacture a small bomb if I wanted to.
In the UK, we have less gun crime because we have less guns. But we have a lot of knife crime instead. People who want to kill will use what weapons are available to them. Such a poorly thought out and ridiculous opinion. If I want to make explosive it takes time, research and planning and a lot of skill to actually use effectively. Buying a gun in the US (or better yet using the one I already own or my parents) does not take those things. Murdering 10s of people in a school shooting style rampage with a knife is logistically impossible. It's also far easier mentally to shoot someone that it is to stab them to death and a person is far more likely to survive a knife attack (or fight off their attacker) than they are if someone uses a gun. All in all it's just far more difficult logistically, mentally and physically to do something like Columbine, Virginia Tech or the Batman Cinema shooting without ready and easy access the firearms. The same could also be said of countless other heat or the moment killings where in the UK a dispute would lead to a fistfight in the US they lead to someone getting shot because people have guns right there and then. Embarrassing that this is coming from a UK resident. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. If someone is determined to do something and they have the willpower, they will achieve it regardless of what they have access to that would potentially make it easier. At most, you'd be buying a little bit of time. Erm, that's kind of the entire fucking point. What universe do you live in where everyone who kills someone spends weeks plotting it out? A white middle class guy like me in the UK would actually find it pretty difficult to get a gun. I'm sure that with enough effort I could, but I wouldn't know where to even start and it would probably involve me going to some very unpleasant places and asking around and maybe over a period of weeks/days I would be able to get one for a lot of money which I then wouldn't have the feintest idea how to shoot properly anyway. Maybe, just maybe that lack of expertise, financial barrier and time spent buying the gun would lead me to reconsider whether I actually wanted to kill someone. However if I all I needed to do was pop on down to the nearest supermarket or just look under my bed I wouldn't have quite the same cooling off period.
You don't even have the knowledge about acquiring firearms legally in your own country. Why do you even post?
Not every shooting is premeditated; however, no one in their right mind walks around carrying an AR-15 all day around with them either, though it's perfectly legal to open carry in many areas of the states.
PS: Your country's firearm laws are crazy.
The fact that people won't accept that people will always kill people regardless of the tool is the most flawed rationalization for gun control advocates.
From xwo's link:
Do hunters really need semi-automatic Glock hand guns? Is that how they roll in deer season? The US public doesn’t think so.
That's probably top 10 dumbest shit I have ever read. That article is a joke and makes no statistical correlation between amount of firearms owned in relation to deaths occurred from a firearm.
|
On August 02 2012 05:39 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 19:50 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:48 stevarius wrote:On August 01 2012 19:45 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:36 hzflank wrote:
I disagree. I think that if a person wants to commit mass murder then they will find a way to do so. Making explosives is harder than buying guns, but if you are planning to commit mass murder then you will be willing to put in the effort to make explosives.
I have no background in chemistry yet I could still manufacture a small bomb if I wanted to.
In the UK, we have less gun crime because we have less guns. But we have a lot of knife crime instead. People who want to kill will use what weapons are available to them. Such a poorly thought out and ridiculous opinion. If I want to make explosive it takes time, research and planning and a lot of skill to actually use effectively. Buying a gun in the US (or better yet using the one I already own or my parents) does not take those things. Murdering 10s of people in a school shooting style rampage with a knife is logistically impossible. It's also far easier mentally to shoot someone that it is to stab them to death and a person is far more likely to survive a knife attack (or fight off their attacker) than they are if someone uses a gun. All in all it's just far more difficult logistically, mentally and physically to do something like Columbine, Virginia Tech or the Batman Cinema shooting without ready and easy access the firearms. The same could also be said of countless other heat or the moment killings where in the UK a dispute would lead to a fistfight in the US they lead to someone getting shot because people have guns right there and then. Embarrassing that this is coming from a UK resident. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. If someone is determined to do something and they have the willpower, they will achieve it regardless of what they have access to that would potentially make it easier. At most, you'd be buying a little bit of time. Erm, that's kind of the entire fucking point. What universe do you live in where everyone who kills someone spends weeks plotting it out? A white middle class guy like me in the UK would actually find it pretty difficult to get a gun. I'm sure that with enough effort I could, but I wouldn't know where to even start and it would probably involve me going to some very unpleasant places and asking around and maybe over a period of weeks/days I would be able to get one for a lot of money which I then wouldn't have the feintest idea how to shoot properly anyway. Maybe, just maybe that lack of expertise, financial barrier and time spent buying the gun would lead me to reconsider whether I actually wanted to kill someone. However if I all I needed to do was pop on down to the nearest supermarket or just look under my bed I wouldn't have quite the same cooling off period. You don't even have the knowledge about acquiring firearms legally in your own country. Why do you even post? Not every shooting is premeditated; however, no one in their right mind walks around carrying an AR-15 all day around with them either, though it's perfectly legal to open carry in many areas of the states. PS: Your country's firearm laws are crazy. The fact that people won't accept that people will always kill people regardless of the tool is the most flawed rationalization for gun control advocates.
People will always kill people, but making it harder to kill is logically a good step toward reducing deaths.
Your position is not backed by statistics, whereas the position of gun control advocates is.
|
On August 02 2012 05:42 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 05:39 stevarius wrote:On August 01 2012 19:50 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:48 stevarius wrote:On August 01 2012 19:45 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:36 hzflank wrote:
I disagree. I think that if a person wants to commit mass murder then they will find a way to do so. Making explosives is harder than buying guns, but if you are planning to commit mass murder then you will be willing to put in the effort to make explosives.
I have no background in chemistry yet I could still manufacture a small bomb if I wanted to.
In the UK, we have less gun crime because we have less guns. But we have a lot of knife crime instead. People who want to kill will use what weapons are available to them. Such a poorly thought out and ridiculous opinion. If I want to make explosive it takes time, research and planning and a lot of skill to actually use effectively. Buying a gun in the US (or better yet using the one I already own or my parents) does not take those things. Murdering 10s of people in a school shooting style rampage with a knife is logistically impossible. It's also far easier mentally to shoot someone that it is to stab them to death and a person is far more likely to survive a knife attack (or fight off their attacker) than they are if someone uses a gun. All in all it's just far more difficult logistically, mentally and physically to do something like Columbine, Virginia Tech or the Batman Cinema shooting without ready and easy access the firearms. The same could also be said of countless other heat or the moment killings where in the UK a dispute would lead to a fistfight in the US they lead to someone getting shot because people have guns right there and then. Embarrassing that this is coming from a UK resident. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. If someone is determined to do something and they have the willpower, they will achieve it regardless of what they have access to that would potentially make it easier. At most, you'd be buying a little bit of time. Erm, that's kind of the entire fucking point. What universe do you live in where everyone who kills someone spends weeks plotting it out? A white middle class guy like me in the UK would actually find it pretty difficult to get a gun. I'm sure that with enough effort I could, but I wouldn't know where to even start and it would probably involve me going to some very unpleasant places and asking around and maybe over a period of weeks/days I would be able to get one for a lot of money which I then wouldn't have the feintest idea how to shoot properly anyway. Maybe, just maybe that lack of expertise, financial barrier and time spent buying the gun would lead me to reconsider whether I actually wanted to kill someone. However if I all I needed to do was pop on down to the nearest supermarket or just look under my bed I wouldn't have quite the same cooling off period. You don't even have the knowledge about acquiring firearms legally in your own country. Why do you even post? Not every shooting is premeditated; however, no one in their right mind walks around carrying an AR-15 all day around with them either, though it's perfectly legal to open carry in many areas of the states. PS: Your country's firearm laws are crazy. The fact that people won't accept that people will always kill people regardless of the tool is the most flawed rationalization for gun control advocates. People will always kill people, but making it harder to kill is logically a good step toward reducing deaths. Your position is not backed by statistics, whereas the position of gun control advocates is.
You can say your opinion on gun control is logical, but I challenge you to provide a logical and feasible way to even contemplate how you would disarm an entire nation for the sake of stopping a minimal amount of gun crimes.
|
On August 02 2012 05:47 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 05:42 wherebugsgo wrote:On August 02 2012 05:39 stevarius wrote:On August 01 2012 19:50 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:48 stevarius wrote:On August 01 2012 19:45 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:36 hzflank wrote:
I disagree. I think that if a person wants to commit mass murder then they will find a way to do so. Making explosives is harder than buying guns, but if you are planning to commit mass murder then you will be willing to put in the effort to make explosives.
I have no background in chemistry yet I could still manufacture a small bomb if I wanted to.
In the UK, we have less gun crime because we have less guns. But we have a lot of knife crime instead. People who want to kill will use what weapons are available to them. Such a poorly thought out and ridiculous opinion. If I want to make explosive it takes time, research and planning and a lot of skill to actually use effectively. Buying a gun in the US (or better yet using the one I already own or my parents) does not take those things. Murdering 10s of people in a school shooting style rampage with a knife is logistically impossible. It's also far easier mentally to shoot someone that it is to stab them to death and a person is far more likely to survive a knife attack (or fight off their attacker) than they are if someone uses a gun. All in all it's just far more difficult logistically, mentally and physically to do something like Columbine, Virginia Tech or the Batman Cinema shooting without ready and easy access the firearms. The same could also be said of countless other heat or the moment killings where in the UK a dispute would lead to a fistfight in the US they lead to someone getting shot because people have guns right there and then. Embarrassing that this is coming from a UK resident. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. If someone is determined to do something and they have the willpower, they will achieve it regardless of what they have access to that would potentially make it easier. At most, you'd be buying a little bit of time. Erm, that's kind of the entire fucking point. What universe do you live in where everyone who kills someone spends weeks plotting it out? A white middle class guy like me in the UK would actually find it pretty difficult to get a gun. I'm sure that with enough effort I could, but I wouldn't know where to even start and it would probably involve me going to some very unpleasant places and asking around and maybe over a period of weeks/days I would be able to get one for a lot of money which I then wouldn't have the feintest idea how to shoot properly anyway. Maybe, just maybe that lack of expertise, financial barrier and time spent buying the gun would lead me to reconsider whether I actually wanted to kill someone. However if I all I needed to do was pop on down to the nearest supermarket or just look under my bed I wouldn't have quite the same cooling off period. You don't even have the knowledge about acquiring firearms legally in your own country. Why do you even post? Not every shooting is premeditated; however, no one in their right mind walks around carrying an AR-15 all day around with them either, though it's perfectly legal to open carry in many areas of the states. PS: Your country's firearm laws are crazy. The fact that people won't accept that people will always kill people regardless of the tool is the most flawed rationalization for gun control advocates. People will always kill people, but making it harder to kill is logically a good step toward reducing deaths. Your position is not backed by statistics, whereas the position of gun control advocates is. You can say your opinion on gun control is logical, but I challenge you to provide a logical and feasible way to even contemplate how you would disarm an entire nation for the sake of stopping a minimal amount of gun crimes.
It wouln't stop any gun crime here, in fact gun crime would increase as it did in Chicago and New York. A lot of these people arguing for gun control or gun bans are from different countries than ours, so it's really pointless having a conversation at all with them. Some of them though can see your point. In the US, we have a completely wide open almost unprotected border where gangs and other criminals bring guns, drugs, etc over, and they do it very easily. In the US, disarming a good and law abiding citizen will just leave them vulnerable to attack by criminals.
Ask yourself this question, would a criminal more likely try to attack a home that is armed, or more likely to attack a home that is disarmed. It's common sense really. People can argue all day that less guns = less gun deaths, but it's not that way here in this country, and even in there are own countries it actually just encourages more crime. Why have a society where the laws are dictated by what a few psychos or criminals do. If you continue that method of thinking you're going to have a police state type of country where everyone's rights are restricted for the sake of "protecting" you from criminals, when in fact it does not. And statistically it's prove in many cases.
|
On August 02 2012 05:58 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 05:47 stevarius wrote:On August 02 2012 05:42 wherebugsgo wrote:On August 02 2012 05:39 stevarius wrote:On August 01 2012 19:50 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:48 stevarius wrote:On August 01 2012 19:45 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:36 hzflank wrote:
I disagree. I think that if a person wants to commit mass murder then they will find a way to do so. Making explosives is harder than buying guns, but if you are planning to commit mass murder then you will be willing to put in the effort to make explosives.
I have no background in chemistry yet I could still manufacture a small bomb if I wanted to.
In the UK, we have less gun crime because we have less guns. But we have a lot of knife crime instead. People who want to kill will use what weapons are available to them. Such a poorly thought out and ridiculous opinion. If I want to make explosive it takes time, research and planning and a lot of skill to actually use effectively. Buying a gun in the US (or better yet using the one I already own or my parents) does not take those things. Murdering 10s of people in a school shooting style rampage with a knife is logistically impossible. It's also far easier mentally to shoot someone that it is to stab them to death and a person is far more likely to survive a knife attack (or fight off their attacker) than they are if someone uses a gun. All in all it's just far more difficult logistically, mentally and physically to do something like Columbine, Virginia Tech or the Batman Cinema shooting without ready and easy access the firearms. The same could also be said of countless other heat or the moment killings where in the UK a dispute would lead to a fistfight in the US they lead to someone getting shot because people have guns right there and then. Embarrassing that this is coming from a UK resident. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. If someone is determined to do something and they have the willpower, they will achieve it regardless of what they have access to that would potentially make it easier. At most, you'd be buying a little bit of time. Erm, that's kind of the entire fucking point. What universe do you live in where everyone who kills someone spends weeks plotting it out? A white middle class guy like me in the UK would actually find it pretty difficult to get a gun. I'm sure that with enough effort I could, but I wouldn't know where to even start and it would probably involve me going to some very unpleasant places and asking around and maybe over a period of weeks/days I would be able to get one for a lot of money which I then wouldn't have the feintest idea how to shoot properly anyway. Maybe, just maybe that lack of expertise, financial barrier and time spent buying the gun would lead me to reconsider whether I actually wanted to kill someone. However if I all I needed to do was pop on down to the nearest supermarket or just look under my bed I wouldn't have quite the same cooling off period. You don't even have the knowledge about acquiring firearms legally in your own country. Why do you even post? Not every shooting is premeditated; however, no one in their right mind walks around carrying an AR-15 all day around with them either, though it's perfectly legal to open carry in many areas of the states. PS: Your country's firearm laws are crazy. The fact that people won't accept that people will always kill people regardless of the tool is the most flawed rationalization for gun control advocates. People will always kill people, but making it harder to kill is logically a good step toward reducing deaths. Your position is not backed by statistics, whereas the position of gun control advocates is. You can say your opinion on gun control is logical, but I challenge you to provide a logical and feasible way to even contemplate how you would disarm an entire nation for the sake of stopping a minimal amount of gun crimes. It wouln't stop any gun crime here, in fact gun crime would increase as it did in Chicago and New York. A lot of these people arguing for gun control or gun bans are from different countries than ours, so it's really pointless having a conversation at all with them. Some of them though can see your point. In the US, we have a completely wide open almost unprotected border where gangs and other criminals bring guns, drugs, etc over, and they do it very easily. In the US, disarming a good and law abiding citizen will just leave them vulnerable to attack by criminals. Ask yourself this question, would a criminal more likely try to attack a home that is armed, or more likely to attack a home that is disarmed. It's common sense really. People can argue all day that less guns = less gun deaths, but it's not that way here in this country, and even in there are own countries it actually just encourages more crime. Why have a society where the laws are dictated by what a few psychos or criminals do. If you continue that method of thinking you're going to have a police state type of country where everyone's rights are restricted for the sake of "protecting" you from criminals, when in fact it does not. And statistically it's prove in many cases.
To point out the obvious, a ton of firearms are getting exported illegally from the US into Mexico, and that's helping fuel the drug trade which you're so worried about.
|
On August 02 2012 01:22 Atheist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 22:09 zatic wrote:On August 01 2012 19:48 stevarius wrote:On August 01 2012 19:45 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:36 hzflank wrote:
I disagree. I think that if a person wants to commit mass murder then they will find a way to do so. Making explosives is harder than buying guns, but if you are planning to commit mass murder then you will be willing to put in the effort to make explosives.
I have no background in chemistry yet I could still manufacture a small bomb if I wanted to.
In the UK, we have less gun crime because we have less guns. But we have a lot of knife crime instead. People who want to kill will use what weapons are available to them. Such a poorly thought out and ridiculous opinion. If I want to make explosive it takes time, research and planning and a lot of skill to actually use effectively. Buying a gun in the US (or better yet using the one I already own or my parents) does not take those things. Murdering 10s of people in a school shooting style rampage with a knife is logistically impossible. It's also far easier mentally to shoot someone that it is to stab them to death and a person is far more likely to survive a knife attack (or fight off their attacker) than they are if someone uses a gun. All in all it's just far more difficult logistically, mentally and physically to do something like Columbine, Virginia Tech or the Batman Cinema shooting without ready and easy access the firearms. The same could also be said of countless other heat or the moment killings where in the UK a dispute would lead to a fistfight in the US they lead to someone getting shot because people have guns right there and then. Embarrassing that this is coming from a UK resident. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. If someone is determined to do something and they have the willpower, they will achieve it regardless of what they have access to that would potentially make it easier. At most, you'd be buying a little bit of time. Well there is a prominent example of an attempted school shooting in Germany, which ended with only a few people injured - because the shooter didn't have any (effective) guns. He did not apply for a license and wait until he could buy real steel, but did his shooting with freely purchasable antique guns and home made bombs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emsdetten_school_shootingObviously he showed enough intent and determination to go through with this. A fact is that with easy access to guns Emsdetten would have to mourn over lots of dead students instead of treat some injured. A fact is that in this case stricter gun laws saved lives, and did not buy some time. I completely agree. The biggest lie we tell ourselves is that people kill people. The statistics alone with the use of guns is hard to deny.
That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard. There's no doubt that if we took millions of guns out of circulation it would have some positive effect on firearm-related deaths, but to say that "people kill people" is a lie is asinine at best. Just because deadly weapons are more easily accessible to some people (in the U.S.) doesn't make them any less responsible when they use them for deadly force.
"People kill people" may not be the whole story (how can it be, it's three words), but it is hardly a lie. Obviously the best method for preventing firearm deaths would be to remove the willingness to kill from all human beings, and then we wouldn't need guns for self-defense. Getting rid of the guns, however, would not eliminate violent crime to the same degree. As always, education and behavioral adjustments will do more than any law can, and boy do we need it.
|
There's also a significant flow of illegal guns north into Canada from the US. So Canada does have some interest in gun control laws in the US. If you think the Mexico border is unprotected, smuggling across the great lakes is a joke (either way).
|
On August 02 2012 05:39 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 19:50 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:48 stevarius wrote:On August 01 2012 19:45 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:36 hzflank wrote:
I disagree. I think that if a person wants to commit mass murder then they will find a way to do so. Making explosives is harder than buying guns, but if you are planning to commit mass murder then you will be willing to put in the effort to make explosives.
I have no background in chemistry yet I could still manufacture a small bomb if I wanted to.
In the UK, we have less gun crime because we have less guns. But we have a lot of knife crime instead. People who want to kill will use what weapons are available to them. Such a poorly thought out and ridiculous opinion. If I want to make explosive it takes time, research and planning and a lot of skill to actually use effectively. Buying a gun in the US (or better yet using the one I already own or my parents) does not take those things. Murdering 10s of people in a school shooting style rampage with a knife is logistically impossible. It's also far easier mentally to shoot someone that it is to stab them to death and a person is far more likely to survive a knife attack (or fight off their attacker) than they are if someone uses a gun. All in all it's just far more difficult logistically, mentally and physically to do something like Columbine, Virginia Tech or the Batman Cinema shooting without ready and easy access the firearms. The same could also be said of countless other heat or the moment killings where in the UK a dispute would lead to a fistfight in the US they lead to someone getting shot because people have guns right there and then. Embarrassing that this is coming from a UK resident. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. If someone is determined to do something and they have the willpower, they will achieve it regardless of what they have access to that would potentially make it easier. At most, you'd be buying a little bit of time. Erm, that's kind of the entire fucking point. What universe do you live in where everyone who kills someone spends weeks plotting it out? A white middle class guy like me in the UK would actually find it pretty difficult to get a gun. I'm sure that with enough effort I could, but I wouldn't know where to even start and it would probably involve me going to some very unpleasant places and asking around and maybe over a period of weeks/days I would be able to get one for a lot of money which I then wouldn't have the feintest idea how to shoot properly anyway. Maybe, just maybe that lack of expertise, financial barrier and time spent buying the gun would lead me to reconsider whether I actually wanted to kill someone. However if I all I needed to do was pop on down to the nearest supermarket or just look under my bed I wouldn't have quite the same cooling off period. You don't even have the knowledge about acquiring firearms legally in your own country. Why do you even post? Not every shooting is premeditated; however, no one in their right mind walks around carrying an AR-15 all day around with them either, though it's perfectly legal to open carry in many areas of the states. PS: Your country's firearm laws are crazy. The fact that people won't accept that people will always kill people regardless of the tool is the most flawed rationalization for gun control advocates. From xwo's link: Show nested quote +Do hunters really need semi-automatic Glock hand guns? Is that how they roll in deer season? The US public doesn’t think so. That's probably top 10 dumbest shit I have ever read. That article is a joke and makes no statistical correlation between amount of firearms owned in relation to deaths occurred from a firearm.
My countries firearms laws are so crazy we've had one school shooting ever and it was 16 years ago. That is it.
You on the other hand have about 10 a year and the blood of those children is on your hands and those of everyone else who thinks normal people should own guns.
And by the way you can't legal own anything but a hunting rifle in the UK. It is illegal to own a handgun or any kind of other gun of that variety in all circumstances. Personally I enjoy the fact that every retard isn't able to kill me with the click of a switch.
|
On August 02 2012 06:09 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 01:22 Atheist wrote:On August 01 2012 22:09 zatic wrote:On August 01 2012 19:48 stevarius wrote:On August 01 2012 19:45 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:36 hzflank wrote:
I disagree. I think that if a person wants to commit mass murder then they will find a way to do so. Making explosives is harder than buying guns, but if you are planning to commit mass murder then you will be willing to put in the effort to make explosives.
I have no background in chemistry yet I could still manufacture a small bomb if I wanted to.
In the UK, we have less gun crime because we have less guns. But we have a lot of knife crime instead. People who want to kill will use what weapons are available to them. Such a poorly thought out and ridiculous opinion. If I want to make explosive it takes time, research and planning and a lot of skill to actually use effectively. Buying a gun in the US (or better yet using the one I already own or my parents) does not take those things. Murdering 10s of people in a school shooting style rampage with a knife is logistically impossible. It's also far easier mentally to shoot someone that it is to stab them to death and a person is far more likely to survive a knife attack (or fight off their attacker) than they are if someone uses a gun. All in all it's just far more difficult logistically, mentally and physically to do something like Columbine, Virginia Tech or the Batman Cinema shooting without ready and easy access the firearms. The same could also be said of countless other heat or the moment killings where in the UK a dispute would lead to a fistfight in the US they lead to someone getting shot because people have guns right there and then. Embarrassing that this is coming from a UK resident. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. If someone is determined to do something and they have the willpower, they will achieve it regardless of what they have access to that would potentially make it easier. At most, you'd be buying a little bit of time. Well there is a prominent example of an attempted school shooting in Germany, which ended with only a few people injured - because the shooter didn't have any (effective) guns. He did not apply for a license and wait until he could buy real steel, but did his shooting with freely purchasable antique guns and home made bombs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emsdetten_school_shootingObviously he showed enough intent and determination to go through with this. A fact is that with easy access to guns Emsdetten would have to mourn over lots of dead students instead of treat some injured. A fact is that in this case stricter gun laws saved lives, and did not buy some time. I completely agree. The biggest lie we tell ourselves is that people kill people. The statistics alone with the use of guns is hard to deny. That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard. There's no doubt that if we took millions of guns out of circulation it would have some positive effect on firearm-related deaths, but to say that "people kill people" is a lie is asinine at best. Just because deadly weapons are more easily accessible to some people (in the U.S.) doesn't make them any less responsible when they use them for deadly force. "People kill people" may not be the whole story (how can it be, it's three words), but it is hardly a lie. Obviously the best method for preventing firearm deaths would be to remove the willingness to kill from all human beings, and then we wouldn't need guns for self-defense. Getting rid of the guns, however, would not eliminate violent crime to the same degree. As always, education and behavioral adjustments will do more than any law can, and boy do we need it.
Yet another poster living in a deluded fantasy world. That stats speak for themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
Oh look, Britain bans people from having guns and we have way less firearm related homicides than the US.
And surprise, surprise we also have far fewer overall homicides despite having comparable non firearm related homicide rates. Want to guess why? Yes that's right, it's because killing someone without using a gun is actually kind of hard.
|
On August 02 2012 06:06 Heh_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 05:58 Esk23 wrote:On August 02 2012 05:47 stevarius wrote:On August 02 2012 05:42 wherebugsgo wrote:On August 02 2012 05:39 stevarius wrote:On August 01 2012 19:50 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:48 stevarius wrote:On August 01 2012 19:45 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:36 hzflank wrote:
I disagree. I think that if a person wants to commit mass murder then they will find a way to do so. Making explosives is harder than buying guns, but if you are planning to commit mass murder then you will be willing to put in the effort to make explosives.
I have no background in chemistry yet I could still manufacture a small bomb if I wanted to.
In the UK, we have less gun crime because we have less guns. But we have a lot of knife crime instead. People who want to kill will use what weapons are available to them. Such a poorly thought out and ridiculous opinion. If I want to make explosive it takes time, research and planning and a lot of skill to actually use effectively. Buying a gun in the US (or better yet using the one I already own or my parents) does not take those things. Murdering 10s of people in a school shooting style rampage with a knife is logistically impossible. It's also far easier mentally to shoot someone that it is to stab them to death and a person is far more likely to survive a knife attack (or fight off their attacker) than they are if someone uses a gun. All in all it's just far more difficult logistically, mentally and physically to do something like Columbine, Virginia Tech or the Batman Cinema shooting without ready and easy access the firearms. The same could also be said of countless other heat or the moment killings where in the UK a dispute would lead to a fistfight in the US they lead to someone getting shot because people have guns right there and then. Embarrassing that this is coming from a UK resident. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. If someone is determined to do something and they have the willpower, they will achieve it regardless of what they have access to that would potentially make it easier. At most, you'd be buying a little bit of time. Erm, that's kind of the entire fucking point. What universe do you live in where everyone who kills someone spends weeks plotting it out? A white middle class guy like me in the UK would actually find it pretty difficult to get a gun. I'm sure that with enough effort I could, but I wouldn't know where to even start and it would probably involve me going to some very unpleasant places and asking around and maybe over a period of weeks/days I would be able to get one for a lot of money which I then wouldn't have the feintest idea how to shoot properly anyway. Maybe, just maybe that lack of expertise, financial barrier and time spent buying the gun would lead me to reconsider whether I actually wanted to kill someone. However if I all I needed to do was pop on down to the nearest supermarket or just look under my bed I wouldn't have quite the same cooling off period. You don't even have the knowledge about acquiring firearms legally in your own country. Why do you even post? Not every shooting is premeditated; however, no one in their right mind walks around carrying an AR-15 all day around with them either, though it's perfectly legal to open carry in many areas of the states. PS: Your country's firearm laws are crazy. The fact that people won't accept that people will always kill people regardless of the tool is the most flawed rationalization for gun control advocates. People will always kill people, but making it harder to kill is logically a good step toward reducing deaths. Your position is not backed by statistics, whereas the position of gun control advocates is. You can say your opinion on gun control is logical, but I challenge you to provide a logical and feasible way to even contemplate how you would disarm an entire nation for the sake of stopping a minimal amount of gun crimes. It wouln't stop any gun crime here, in fact gun crime would increase as it did in Chicago and New York. A lot of these people arguing for gun control or gun bans are from different countries than ours, so it's really pointless having a conversation at all with them. Some of them though can see your point. In the US, we have a completely wide open almost unprotected border where gangs and other criminals bring guns, drugs, etc over, and they do it very easily. In the US, disarming a good and law abiding citizen will just leave them vulnerable to attack by criminals. Ask yourself this question, would a criminal more likely try to attack a home that is armed, or more likely to attack a home that is disarmed. It's common sense really. People can argue all day that less guns = less gun deaths, but it's not that way here in this country, and even in there are own countries it actually just encourages more crime. Why have a society where the laws are dictated by what a few psychos or criminals do. If you continue that method of thinking you're going to have a police state type of country where everyone's rights are restricted for the sake of "protecting" you from criminals, when in fact it does not. And statistically it's prove in many cases. To point out the obvious, a ton of firearms are getting exported illegally from the US into Mexico, and that's helping fuel the drug trade which you're so worried about.
Yeah because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
And because the US doesn't enforce it's borders like it should.
You are really naive if you think any gun laws would stop what gun trafficking there is to your country.
|
On August 02 2012 09:04 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 06:09 ZasZ. wrote:On August 02 2012 01:22 Atheist wrote:On August 01 2012 22:09 zatic wrote:On August 01 2012 19:48 stevarius wrote:On August 01 2012 19:45 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:36 hzflank wrote:
I disagree. I think that if a person wants to commit mass murder then they will find a way to do so. Making explosives is harder than buying guns, but if you are planning to commit mass murder then you will be willing to put in the effort to make explosives.
I have no background in chemistry yet I could still manufacture a small bomb if I wanted to.
In the UK, we have less gun crime because we have less guns. But we have a lot of knife crime instead. People who want to kill will use what weapons are available to them. Such a poorly thought out and ridiculous opinion. If I want to make explosive it takes time, research and planning and a lot of skill to actually use effectively. Buying a gun in the US (or better yet using the one I already own or my parents) does not take those things. Murdering 10s of people in a school shooting style rampage with a knife is logistically impossible. It's also far easier mentally to shoot someone that it is to stab them to death and a person is far more likely to survive a knife attack (or fight off their attacker) than they are if someone uses a gun. All in all it's just far more difficult logistically, mentally and physically to do something like Columbine, Virginia Tech or the Batman Cinema shooting without ready and easy access the firearms. The same could also be said of countless other heat or the moment killings where in the UK a dispute would lead to a fistfight in the US they lead to someone getting shot because people have guns right there and then. Embarrassing that this is coming from a UK resident. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. If someone is determined to do something and they have the willpower, they will achieve it regardless of what they have access to that would potentially make it easier. At most, you'd be buying a little bit of time. Well there is a prominent example of an attempted school shooting in Germany, which ended with only a few people injured - because the shooter didn't have any (effective) guns. He did not apply for a license and wait until he could buy real steel, but did his shooting with freely purchasable antique guns and home made bombs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emsdetten_school_shootingObviously he showed enough intent and determination to go through with this. A fact is that with easy access to guns Emsdetten would have to mourn over lots of dead students instead of treat some injured. A fact is that in this case stricter gun laws saved lives, and did not buy some time. I completely agree. The biggest lie we tell ourselves is that people kill people. The statistics alone with the use of guns is hard to deny. That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard. There's no doubt that if we took millions of guns out of circulation it would have some positive effect on firearm-related deaths, but to say that "people kill people" is a lie is asinine at best. Just because deadly weapons are more easily accessible to some people (in the U.S.) doesn't make them any less responsible when they use them for deadly force. "People kill people" may not be the whole story (how can it be, it's three words), but it is hardly a lie. Obviously the best method for preventing firearm deaths would be to remove the willingness to kill from all human beings, and then we wouldn't need guns for self-defense. Getting rid of the guns, however, would not eliminate violent crime to the same degree. As always, education and behavioral adjustments will do more than any law can, and boy do we need it. Yet another poster living in a deluded fantasy world. That stats speak for themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violenceOh look, Britain bans people from having guns and we have way less firearm related homicides than the US. And surprise, surprise we also have far fewer overall homicides despite having comparable non firearm related homicide rates. Want to guess why? Yes that's right, it's because killing someone without using a gun is actually kind of hard.
Yet you have a higher crime rate in your country than US does, you really have no argument for why good people can't use guns for self defense except the fact that a few criminals can get them and commit crime, which they do regardless if they have a gun or not.
With your method of thinking, I suppose we should ban cars too since 3 times as many people die in car accidents than they do to firearms.
|
On August 02 2012 09:09 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 09:04 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 02 2012 06:09 ZasZ. wrote:On August 02 2012 01:22 Atheist wrote:On August 01 2012 22:09 zatic wrote:On August 01 2012 19:48 stevarius wrote:On August 01 2012 19:45 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:36 hzflank wrote:
I disagree. I think that if a person wants to commit mass murder then they will find a way to do so. Making explosives is harder than buying guns, but if you are planning to commit mass murder then you will be willing to put in the effort to make explosives.
I have no background in chemistry yet I could still manufacture a small bomb if I wanted to.
In the UK, we have less gun crime because we have less guns. But we have a lot of knife crime instead. People who want to kill will use what weapons are available to them. Such a poorly thought out and ridiculous opinion. If I want to make explosive it takes time, research and planning and a lot of skill to actually use effectively. Buying a gun in the US (or better yet using the one I already own or my parents) does not take those things. Murdering 10s of people in a school shooting style rampage with a knife is logistically impossible. It's also far easier mentally to shoot someone that it is to stab them to death and a person is far more likely to survive a knife attack (or fight off their attacker) than they are if someone uses a gun. All in all it's just far more difficult logistically, mentally and physically to do something like Columbine, Virginia Tech or the Batman Cinema shooting without ready and easy access the firearms. The same could also be said of countless other heat or the moment killings where in the UK a dispute would lead to a fistfight in the US they lead to someone getting shot because people have guns right there and then. Embarrassing that this is coming from a UK resident. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. If someone is determined to do something and they have the willpower, they will achieve it regardless of what they have access to that would potentially make it easier. At most, you'd be buying a little bit of time. Well there is a prominent example of an attempted school shooting in Germany, which ended with only a few people injured - because the shooter didn't have any (effective) guns. He did not apply for a license and wait until he could buy real steel, but did his shooting with freely purchasable antique guns and home made bombs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emsdetten_school_shootingObviously he showed enough intent and determination to go through with this. A fact is that with easy access to guns Emsdetten would have to mourn over lots of dead students instead of treat some injured. A fact is that in this case stricter gun laws saved lives, and did not buy some time. I completely agree. The biggest lie we tell ourselves is that people kill people. The statistics alone with the use of guns is hard to deny. That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard. There's no doubt that if we took millions of guns out of circulation it would have some positive effect on firearm-related deaths, but to say that "people kill people" is a lie is asinine at best. Just because deadly weapons are more easily accessible to some people (in the U.S.) doesn't make them any less responsible when they use them for deadly force. "People kill people" may not be the whole story (how can it be, it's three words), but it is hardly a lie. Obviously the best method for preventing firearm deaths would be to remove the willingness to kill from all human beings, and then we wouldn't need guns for self-defense. Getting rid of the guns, however, would not eliminate violent crime to the same degree. As always, education and behavioral adjustments will do more than any law can, and boy do we need it. Yet another poster living in a deluded fantasy world. That stats speak for themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violenceOh look, Britain bans people from having guns and we have way less firearm related homicides than the US. And surprise, surprise we also have far fewer overall homicides despite having comparable non firearm related homicide rates. Want to guess why? Yes that's right, it's because killing someone without using a gun is actually kind of hard. Yet you have a higher crime rate in your country than US does, you really have no argument for why good people can't use guns for self defense except the fact that a few criminals can get them and commit crime, which they do regardless if they have a gun or not. With your method of thinking, I suppose we should ban cars too since 3 times as many people die in car accidents than they do to firearms.
Actually, a higher crime-rate with lower deaths kinda proves his point.
Better to get mugged an live, as getting mugged and getting shot trying to kill the mugger.
|
On August 02 2012 09:09 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 09:04 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 02 2012 06:09 ZasZ. wrote:On August 02 2012 01:22 Atheist wrote:On August 01 2012 22:09 zatic wrote:On August 01 2012 19:48 stevarius wrote:On August 01 2012 19:45 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:36 hzflank wrote:
I disagree. I think that if a person wants to commit mass murder then they will find a way to do so. Making explosives is harder than buying guns, but if you are planning to commit mass murder then you will be willing to put in the effort to make explosives.
I have no background in chemistry yet I could still manufacture a small bomb if I wanted to.
In the UK, we have less gun crime because we have less guns. But we have a lot of knife crime instead. People who want to kill will use what weapons are available to them. Such a poorly thought out and ridiculous opinion. If I want to make explosive it takes time, research and planning and a lot of skill to actually use effectively. Buying a gun in the US (or better yet using the one I already own or my parents) does not take those things. Murdering 10s of people in a school shooting style rampage with a knife is logistically impossible. It's also far easier mentally to shoot someone that it is to stab them to death and a person is far more likely to survive a knife attack (or fight off their attacker) than they are if someone uses a gun. All in all it's just far more difficult logistically, mentally and physically to do something like Columbine, Virginia Tech or the Batman Cinema shooting without ready and easy access the firearms. The same could also be said of countless other heat or the moment killings where in the UK a dispute would lead to a fistfight in the US they lead to someone getting shot because people have guns right there and then. Embarrassing that this is coming from a UK resident. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. If someone is determined to do something and they have the willpower, they will achieve it regardless of what they have access to that would potentially make it easier. At most, you'd be buying a little bit of time. Well there is a prominent example of an attempted school shooting in Germany, which ended with only a few people injured - because the shooter didn't have any (effective) guns. He did not apply for a license and wait until he could buy real steel, but did his shooting with freely purchasable antique guns and home made bombs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emsdetten_school_shootingObviously he showed enough intent and determination to go through with this. A fact is that with easy access to guns Emsdetten would have to mourn over lots of dead students instead of treat some injured. A fact is that in this case stricter gun laws saved lives, and did not buy some time. I completely agree. The biggest lie we tell ourselves is that people kill people. The statistics alone with the use of guns is hard to deny. That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard. There's no doubt that if we took millions of guns out of circulation it would have some positive effect on firearm-related deaths, but to say that "people kill people" is a lie is asinine at best. Just because deadly weapons are more easily accessible to some people (in the U.S.) doesn't make them any less responsible when they use them for deadly force. "People kill people" may not be the whole story (how can it be, it's three words), but it is hardly a lie. Obviously the best method for preventing firearm deaths would be to remove the willingness to kill from all human beings, and then we wouldn't need guns for self-defense. Getting rid of the guns, however, would not eliminate violent crime to the same degree. As always, education and behavioral adjustments will do more than any law can, and boy do we need it. Yet another poster living in a deluded fantasy world. That stats speak for themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violenceOh look, Britain bans people from having guns and we have way less firearm related homicides than the US. And surprise, surprise we also have far fewer overall homicides despite having comparable non firearm related homicide rates. Want to guess why? Yes that's right, it's because killing someone without using a gun is actually kind of hard. Yet you have a higher crime rate in your country than US does, you really have no argument for why good people can't use guns for self defense except the fact that a few criminals can get them and commit crime, which they do regardless if they have a gun or not. With your method of thinking, I suppose we should ban cars too since 3 times as many people die in car accidents than they do to firearms.
As someone pointed out earlier, higher crime rates dont necessarily mean that there are actually more crimes commited (though in the case of the UK I wouldnt be surprised if it was higher than the US crime rate). You have to take into account the crimes that were never reported for instance.
All in all I think that background checks, a wait time, and weapons training in regular intervals (this I think is very important) should be mandatory. That should at least prevent a lot of crimes that are commited in the heat of the moment (which should make up the bulk of gunshot victims aside from gang violence, right?). Well since I don't live in the US I dont really have any influence or say in what should be legal and what shouldnt in your country, I'm just voicing my opinion here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
