Gun Control

well, you can't say by taking guns away all heat of the moment killings are going to stop. people will use whatever is handy. what are we going to do when more people die by knives? or by baseball bats? or by lamps, paper weights, chairs, rocks and fists?

i mean yea people won't die via gunshot, but they'll either be seriously hurt or killed by whatever is around.

we really need to enforce the laws we have. and i think we should change the rule for the mentally ill. i mean the VA Tech Shooter showed signs of mental instability but the teachers and the cops couldn't do anything because the law says the mentally ill have to be a danger to themselves or to others in order to be committed. HELLO!!! HE WAS STALKING AND THREATENING GIRLS!!!

too little too late...its kinda sad when you think about it....
 
actually that man was submitted for observation against his will. they did say he was a danger to himself and others. a man like that should not be allowed to obtain a gun. and i dont think we can predict 'they will get the gun if they want it'. how are we to know? sure they might seek out an illegal arms dealer but they might not, we cant know for sure.

as for other crimes rising? its unrelated. you kill someone with a gun because physically, theres not much to it. you arent intimately involved in the killing. if i wanted to take someone out i could do it with a gun and be yards away, whereas a knife or blunt object you have to be right there. its a different situation, if that makes sense at all. someone may be able to commit murder with a gun because they can feel disconnected from the situation, but if you remove their access to a gun they may not be capable of using a weapon that puts them up close to their victim.
 
you kill someone with a gun because physically, theres not much to it. you arent intimately involved in the killing. if i wanted to take someone out i could do it with a gun and be yards away, whereas a knife or blunt object you have to be right there. its a different situation, if that makes sense at all. someone may be able to commit murder with a gun because they can feel disconnected from the situation, but if you remove their access to a gun they may not be capable of using a weapon that puts them up close to their victim.
Click to expand...

Flawed logic there. Most murders with guns are committed like other murders, up close and personal. Most people couldn't hit the broadside of a barn at a distance so they kill up close when they use a gun.

Before people used guns, they used bow and arrows, swords, crossbows, knives, maces, fists, baseball bats, virtually anything that could be used as a weapon. Murder has been a staple of society since before society existed.

Claiming gun violence is going to go down by banning guns looks logical but it is far too simplistic. A lot of the crimes committed with a gun are done by criminals who likely had the gun illegally in the first place. Taking the right of people to legally own a gun doesn't do a thing about those who get them illegally. Short of elminating all guns everywhere, you'll never achieve that.
 
Teelie said:
Claiming gun violence is going to go down by banning guns looks logical but it is far too simplistic. A lot of the crimes committed with a gun are done by criminals who likely had the gun illegally in the first place. Taking the right of people to legally own a gun doesn't do a thing about those who get them illegally. Short of elminating all guns everywhere, you'll never achieve that.
Click to expand...

Interesting - is that really the only way? Could stricter gun laws really do nothing? What about a mandatory sentence for even minor offences, one that is strictly reinforced?

Surely removing all guns from the public isn't the only solution for lowing gun-crime rates.
 
Stricter laws will reduce but not elminate gun violence like supporters claim. Longer sentences just means it'll take a little longer for them to go and commit a crime again. Ever see the return statistics for criminal offenders? Not to mention that overcrowding invariably means shorter sentences for offenders.

Still, I do think that harsher, enforced gun laws are better than the mess we have now. Don't go trying to squeeze out legal gun purchases, instead make it so undesirable to commit a crime with a gun that people think twice about it.

There is no simple solution like gun-ban advocates claim. This will not go away instantly if you ban guns or make them even harder to obtain.

It will still take decades at a minimum to get true and effective gun control to work if the anti-gun and pro-gun lobbyists stopped trying to pull on the extremes and began to work together on a compromise.

I think you misread my comment on removing all guns from the streets. I meant it is literally impossible and a fool's errand to attempt. You can't undo what has been done. Guns are here and here to stay. The best that can be hoped for is better education of the public and of legal gun owners, not eradication of guns.

The "War On Drugs" is an excellent example of trying to make something illegal that cannot be eliminated. That's been going on for about 30 years and drugs are if anything, more prevalent than they were when the "war" started.
 
allmaple said:
actually that man was submitted for observation against his will. they did say he was a danger to himself and others. a man like that should not be allowed to obtain a gun. and i dont think we can predict 'they will get the gun if they want it'. how are we to know? sure they might seek out an illegal arms dealer but they might not, we cant know for sure.

as for other crimes rising? its unrelated. you kill someone with a gun because physically, theres not much to it. you arent intimately involved in the killing. if i wanted to take someone out i could do it with a gun and be yards away, whereas a knife or blunt object you have to be right there. its a different situation, if that makes sense at all. someone may be able to commit murder with a gun because they can feel disconnected from the situation, but if you remove their access to a gun they may not be capable of using a weapon that puts them up close to their victim.
Click to expand...

ok, as for the VA Tech Shooter ya he was committed.....FOR 30 DAYS!! the man didn't get the help he needed. i'm sure if he got the help he needed he might not have done what he did. and yes if he wanted a gun he would have gone and gotten one because on the street they're not that hard to come by.

as for feeling less guilty by using a gun than a knife, that not nessesarily true. psycologically the average person like you or me will feel bad for killing someone because we have never thought about killing someone. criminals and other killers have already thought of the kill....how they'll do it, who they're going to do it to, so it really doesn't matter what weapon they use. they see their victim as a target so they are already disconnected to the victim.

and as for shooting from a few yards away...you have to have some experience with a gun before you can hit a target from a distance or you'll just hit the person and not kill them. thats why most people shoot when the victim is close because its easier to confirm a kill if you are closer to the target.
 
luvspeed said:
ok, as for the VA Tech Shooter ya he was committed.....FOR 30 DAYS!! the man didn't get the help he needed. i'm sure if he got the help he needed he might not have done what he did.
Click to expand...

But he didn't get the help he needed, and even though he was so recently committed, he was still allowed to purchase a gun. And, if the clerk did as he says he did and went through with a background check, then why is it legal for someone like the VA Tech Murderer to get a weapon?

Yeah, he might have just gone down the street and gotten a gun off the black market, but the fact that he didn't have to completely proves that the gun laws need to be changed, and the current ones need to be enforced.
 
Virginia has some of the loosest and least enforced gun control laws, which goes back to my point, stricter enforcement of gun laws and more thorough checks.
 
we i agree with you guys. the laws need to be enforced, but what else can be done? i still say we need to teach gun safety more. we especially need to make it clear to children that guns aren't toys.
 
^Good start. However I´d even forbid kids having guns with them. Doubtlessly adults must handle guns more carefully as well.

Yet we have to help young kids to differ between reality and created fiction, as it is shown in slasher-games or slasher movies.
 
exactly. when i was a kid i wasn't even allowed to have toy guns. if you look now, toy guns look alot like real ones. for children you teach the rule "see a gun, leave the room, call an adult". adults should learn gun safety too so that if they find one they won't hurt themselves.
 
^Definitely. However I think the issue is less hurting ech other than so many people feeling threatened.

edit:
Gun safety is a more than dangerous point. Of course sport-shooting is serious sports. However as long as we produce weapons there´ll be perps abusing them. :eek:
 
i know! we should have bullet control! make every bullet $5,000. my friend and i came up with that one. that way its not really worth it to shoot someone. not saying its realistic but i thought it was funny.
 
just can't win, can you? :confused:

i found this interesting....my dad once told me that Switzerland is the safest place in the world because every male has their issue military rifle and one other gun in the house. i don't know if its true but i thought it was cool. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top