EPTUser was banned for this post.
Shootings in the US - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
KILLB0T
Canada6 Posts
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
Detri
United Kingdom683 Posts
Making firearms (btw that includes fireworks/air rifles) illegal really worked out well for where I'm from, Northern Ireland. Psychos can get a gun if they want it. Maybe not just as easily, but if you want a gun you can get one. EZPZ As for anti-handgun etc, I'm sure someone with enough practice could down as many people with a shotgun as they could with a handgun and a few clips of ammo. These guys should be blackballed by the media, and locked up for life with no chance of parole. It's the ONLY way to deal with psychopaths like this in a civilised society. Thoughts go out to the guy who was shot and his family, whatever he did I'm sure he didn't deserve this shit, he's only a kid. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On August 29 2012 08:55 Detri wrote: Got to laugh at the "if there were no guns there would be no shootings statements" Making firearms (btw that includes fireworks/air rifles) illegal really worked out well for where I'm from, Northern Ireland. Psychos can get a gun if they want it. Maybe not just as easily, but if you want a gun you can get one. EZPZ As for anti-handgun etc, I'm sure someone with enough practice could down as many people with a shotgun as they could with a handgun and a few clips of ammo. These guys should be blackballed by the media, and locked up for life with no chance of parole. It's the ONLY way to deal with psychopaths like this in a civilised society. Thoughts go out to the guy who was shot and his family, whatever he did I'm sure he didn't deserve this shit, he's only a kid. Agree with the statement on gun laws. All restrictions will do is make it illegal for law-abiding people to have guns, criminals are going to break laws because that's what they do. They will also make it more difficult to obtain them, but our Southern neighbor will ensure a supply of guns for quite a while (ironically, many of them our own). | ||
|
Azzur
Australia6267 Posts
Yes, banning guns will reduce the amounts of shootings. This is because these people are borderline psychotic and are prone to snap actions. Thus, if you make it harder for them, because they are not out of kill someone in particular, of course shootings will decrease. BUT, you won't solve the problem. These borderline psychotic will still remain borderline psychotic. Then, one day, they are going to do something devastating - that may even be worse than shootings. Then gun-control people will laud studies showing decrease in shootings but don't realise that the problem has merely shifted elsewhere. | ||
|
leperphilliac
United States399 Posts
If you gave everybody in Japan a gun, do you think the crime rate would rise to American levels? Of course not. Besides, for mass murder I'd think bombs would be much, much more efficient than guns. I swear, every time I see non-Americans talk about guns I see them think that anybody who owns them has a 50/50 chance of being a psychopath. Guess what, 45% of American households have guns. That means that ~140 million people have guns in their houses, with about 270 million guns. Most of us are sane people who'd rather die than kill other random people. | ||
|
tokicheese
Canada739 Posts
On August 29 2012 11:11 leperphilliac wrote: The media combined with piss poor mental health services in the country. Look at the Aurora murderer. His face was plastered all over the front page of the news. To a mentally unfit, lonely, attention seeking psychopath, that's a dream come true. So naturally, he'll emulate what previous murderers have done to get their face plastered over the news. And on and on and on. This is why the random mass shootings occur. As for the gang violence, no other first world country has a war on drugs like we do, nor do they have a piss poor education system and a revolving door for-profit prison system. If you gave everybody in Japan a gun, do you think the crime rate would rise to American levels? Of course not. Besides, for mass murder I'd think bombs would be much, much more efficient than guns. I swear, every time I see non-Americans talk about guns I see them think that anybody who owns them has a 50/50 chance of being a psychopath. Guess what, 45% of American households have guns. That means that ~140 million people have guns in their houses, with about 270 million guns. Most of us are sane people who'd rather die than kill other random people. The thing is in my opinion that there is a lot of strife in America because of what you listed. There will be violence in the inner city no matter what. It is just gun violence because of how easy it is to get one if there were no guns it would be more knife attacks and beatings. Banning guns now in the states is useless there are just so many. | ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
Again, I support firearm rights. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On August 29 2012 11:11 leperphilliac wrote: The media combined with piss poor mental health services in the country. Look at the Aurora murderer. His face was plastered all over the front page of the news. To a mentally unfit, lonely, attention seeking psychopath, that's a dream come true. So naturally, he'll emulate what previous murderers have done to get their face plastered over the news. And on and on and on. This is why the random mass shootings occur. As for the gang violence, no other first world country has a war on drugs like we do, nor do they have a piss poor education system and a revolving door for-profit prison system. If you gave everybody in Japan a gun, do you think the crime rate would rise to American levels? Of course not. Besides, for mass murder I'd think bombs would be much, much more efficient than guns. I swear, every time I see non-Americans talk about guns I see them think that anybody who owns them has a 50/50 chance of being a psychopath. Guess what, 45% of American households have guns. That means that ~140 million people have guns in their houses, with about 270 million guns. Most of us are sane people who'd rather die than kill other random people. If America banned guns, even if crime rates stayed the same, a lot less people would die. It's a lot easier to defend yourself against a machete than a gun, you can outrun a guy with a knife, you can't outrun a bullet. Yes there is the case about criminals having guns and law abiding citizens not, however if the government enacts the ban properly this shouldn't happen, it would take a while and be very expensive to buy all the guns back though. It wasn't long ago when our country allowed a large range of guns but banned them all, so it is doable. We have a lot of knife crime around here, thank goodness we don't have guns. | ||
|
Kreb
4834 Posts
But on the other hand, that can be said about a lot of things. I mean, the government could forbid alcohol. Would that have a positive effect on peoples health and cause less murders and suicides? Of course it would. But good look finding the politician who wants to go through with that. Same could be done with unhealthy food as another example. So in the end you gotta find a balance. As long as the will/acceptance to own guns is greater than the will to lower the amount of gun casualties, things will not (and should not) change. Until that happens, the school shootings and similar are a "necessary bad" for the greater good of owning guns. Just like all the murders, suicides or accidents caused by alcohol are for the greater good of allowed alcohol consumption. A life is really not worth that much to us (at least until it happens someone close to us). | ||
|
Fulmine
United States50 Posts
On August 29 2012 08:35 KILLB0T wrote: GUN LAWS IN AMERICA MAKE IT TO EASY TO ACCESS A FIREARM. JUST HEAR ME OUT, CRAZY/STUPID PEOPLE ARE EVERYWHERE, THEY'VE BEEN EVERYWHERE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME. BUT IN AMERICA, A CRAZY/STUPID PERSON CAN GET ACCESS TO A GUN LEGALLY, JUST LOOK AT THE COLORADO THEATER INCIDENT, ALL HIS WEAPONS WHERE PURCHASED LEGALLY. THIS KID WAS ALSO ONLY 15, HE PROBABLY HAD SOME FEUD WITH THIS KID, KNEW HIS DAD/RELATIVE HAD A GUN SOMEWHERE AND THEN MADE THE WORST POSSIBLE DECISION OF HIS LIFE, SURE YOU COULD SAY HE WOULD OF JUST STABBED HIM OR SOME OTHER ALTERNATIVE AND MAYBE YOU'RE RIGHT. BUT THAT'S LESS DANGEROUS THAN A FIREARM. JUST THINK IF FIREARMS WEREN'T LEGAL IN THE USA, JAMES HOLMES AND ALL OF THESE OTHER KILLERS WOULD OF HAD TO PURCHASE GUNS ILLEGALLY MAKING IT ALOT HARDER FOR THEM TO KILL AS MANY PEOPLE AS THE DID. PUBLIC ACCESS TO GUNS IS THE PROBLEM User was banned for this post. I know he was banned for this but I want to correct a few things here just so no one takes bad information off of this <.<. The shooter in the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting (assuming you're referring to that), was a former college student having just dropped out recently before the incident, he was quite a bit older than 15. (a 15 year old wouldn't be legally purchasing guns.) Access to guns is not the problem and this specific incident even proves it as well. His apartment was rigged up with enough explosives to take out the entire complex, killing thousands of people easily. Had anyone opened the door to his room, there would have been more damage done than he possibly could have achieved with his guns, no matter how loaded up he was. Not to demean any of the lives taken or injuries inflicted, it was still terrible no matter how you look at it, but had it gone to his intentions, it would have been hundreds of times worse. The point to this? Bombs/Explosives are illegal. Fortunately, that part of his plan was stopped. Removing guns or imposing stricter control laws has proven ineffective statistically. Find the data on the rates of gun violence per city, and you'll see chicago and DC sitting close to the top, both of these being two places in the US with the strictest gun control laws in the nation. DC has even improved dramatically as the control laws begin to be combatted in the courts. As far as getting guns illegally, depending where you live and such it might be difficult, but I know personally for me around my area its probably easier to get them illegally than it is legally, if not it's still pretty easy. To simplify, not gun control, gun education. :3 | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10939 Posts
It's a problem with the US-Society/Culture anyway so no law (aside from real hard ban and destruction of next to all guns avalaible) will have a big impact. | ||
|
Fulmine
United States50 Posts
Aiming better and better use would help, as evidenced by the recent shooting incident at the empire state building, where most of the people who were hit weren't hit by the gunman, but by the crossfire of the cops trying to take him down, because they had never really trained with their weapons. I do agree our culture does have alot to do with it though and I've stated it many times in previous posts. People badly misrepresent it often though as being some product of the southern states, and of "bible toting gun wielding folk". Crazy as they are most of your typical offenders in this country are gangs, psychos, and extreme radicalists. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10939 Posts
I really don't see any benefit except probably having a mandatory test before a gun purchase... Which would also make it harder to get guns, but you are against that if i did not horribly mssread your post.. You make no sense to me... My simplest argument is still: If your not a Hunter, you don't need a gun, therefore you should not be able to get a gun because there is no need for you to have one. If you think there is actually a need for having one, your part of the problem. Your cops filling the whole area around them with bullets when feeling in danger is another issue were education could probably help tons... | ||
|
Fulmine
United States50 Posts
To think there is no need of self protection is a bit silly, the world is not some peaceful place, definitely not yet. Hopefully we'll get there one day but violence with and without guns is still quite high, and to top it off we have statistics to prove gun control has increased the crime rate and removing it has lowered it here. http://gunowners.org/fs0101.htm When the world has reached a status of unattainable peace, then we can rid ourselves of guns. But the fact is thus, there are still many extremely bad people out there, and there is no sign of this changing any time soon. Take away the protection, and trust me it will not lower crime. and any lowering of mass shooting incidents will be greatly overshadowed by other forms of attacks increasing dramatically. (there is a statistic about that in the above link, which ill go ahead and copy paste.) Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and, * Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%.25 ^Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection Also: * 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."28 * 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."29 * 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."30 D. Police cannot protect -- and are not required to protect -- every individual Just some stats for you. also: "My simplest argument is still: If your not a Hunter, you don't need a gun, therefore you should not be able to get a gun because there is no need for you to have one. If you think there is actually a need for having one, your part of the problem." A simple argument to a very complex issue doesn't seem too fitting unfortunately, I definitely wish it were that simple though. Also allow me to throw you a hypothetical. Lets say that version of guncontrol is imposed. No one but government and hunters are allowed to own guns. What's stopping the hunters from flipping the fuck out and killing you? You can't stop them. They got a gun, you don't. Another thing we've seen here lately is that many of your mass shooters were people who were on the right track in life and suddenly 180'ed into the monsters they became, the aurora shooter being a perfect example of this. He was well on the right way to having a very successful and prosperous life and then he just went crazy. So what's stopping any random hunter from doing the same thing, not you, you don't have a gun. Don't say police either, by the time they can even get there, you're more than likely dead, and your murderer has taken what he/she wants and has fled, and it could be years, decades even before they're brought to justice, and ultimately, you're still dead in the end. | ||
|
Agathon
France1505 Posts
On August 29 2012 19:46 Fulmine wrote: Also allow me to throw you a hypothetical. Lets say that version of guncontrol is imposed. No one but government and hunters are allowed to own guns. What's stopping the hunters from flipping the fuck out and killing you? You can't stop them. They got a gun, you don't. Another thing we've seen here lately is that many of your mass shooters were people who were on the right track in life and suddenly 180'ed into the monsters they became, the aurora shooter being a perfect example of this. He was well on the right way to having a very successful and prosperous life and then he just went crazy. So what's stopping any random hunter from doing the same thing, not you, you don't have a gun. Don't say police either, by the time they can even get there, you're more than likely dead, and your murderer has taken what he/she wants and has fled, and it could be years, decades even before they're brought to justice, and ultimately, you're still dead in the end. Well, yeah nothing could stop the hunter, but at least, US might have a murder rate per capita that doesn't double most of the other rich democracy who have this kind of guncontrol. That's what most europeans are saying. I could agree with you when you say that guns are a protection, but when I read the digits of murders in US, i think : "Hum, this protection doesn't seems very effective." (to say the least). No offence, but the digits contradict your arguments. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10161 Posts
On August 28 2012 03:59 blade55555 wrote: hahaha oh how wrong you are. When somebody wants to shoot people they find a way to get a gun. It wouldn't prevent anything but unfortunately I know no matter how hard I try there is no way for you to see reason. That's because you live on the US and you want to believe that crap. You had watched too many movies pal. | ||
|
Spec
Taiwan931 Posts
| ||
|
jdsowa
405 Posts
In Japan, a child can buy alcohol on the street out of a vending machine. But Japan doesn't have issues with underage drinking because they have a relatively healthy culture. If you had a healthy society, you could arm every citizen and there would be no violence. With an unhealthy society, it doesn't matter how hard it is to get guns, the lunatics will find them. In America, our values are individualism and money-making. It's every man for himself. And if you grow up and find out that you're not the special person you were lead to believe you'd turn out to be, society will pay. | ||
|
RageBot
Israel1530 Posts
On August 29 2012 19:13 Fulmine wrote: Education, not simply in the instance of training on how to use the guns properly, but to imply strongly upon the purchaser exactly what they're getting, and the responsibility of it. Aiming better and better use would help, as evidenced by the recent shooting incident at the empire state building, where most of the people who were hit weren't hit by the gunman, but by the crossfire of the cops trying to take him down, because they had never really trained with their weapons. I do agree our culture does have alot to do with it though and I've stated it many times in previous posts. People badly misrepresent it often though as being some product of the southern states, and of "bible toting gun wielding folk". Crazy as they are most of your typical offenders in this country are gangs, psychos, and extreme radicalists. Are you implying that a guy who was on track for a PhD in neuroscience is "uneducated"? | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On August 29 2012 19:06 Velr wrote: Gun education.. So they aim better or what? Sex education.. So they fuck better or what? Do you see why that was a silly question? On August 29 2012 22:33 RageBot wrote: Are you implying that a guy who was on track for a PhD in neuroscience is "uneducated"? but to imply strongly upon the purchaser exactly what they're getting, and the responsibility of it. Does that look like it's taught in a neuroscience class? Show me the neuroscience course which will explain that a gun is a weapon that projects lethal force upon its target, and ensures that the student knows the immense dangers of such a thing, and is left with the permanent impression that a firearm is not something to take lightly. I will eat my arms if you can find one. But great straw mans today. Team Liquid General forum, never letting us down. | ||
| ||
