When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: drag
Banning guns are such a great idea!!

If you eliminate guns then nobody can shoot each other!!

It's so logical!!!


Here are other things that have been successfully banned and removed from American sociaty:

Software that allows people to illegally pirate movies --- Successfully banned by DMCA.

Cocaine -- Successfully removed from American Society when it was made illegal in 1914.

Alcohol -- Successfully removed from American Society when made illegal in 1920, but made legal again 1930 by those asshole conservatives.

Heroin and other opiates... Been removed from American sociaty from a wide veriaty of very succcessfull laws starting with making opium illegal to import in 1909.

LSD -- successfully been stopped since 1967.

Marajuana was successfully purged from this country and has been on the rapid decline in use since we passed the law making that illegal in 1937.



In all seriousness if you want to severely limit the sort of gun violance that plagues the USA then your going to have to figure out how to limit the popularity of drug use and the drug trade going on in intercities.

Typically (not always) the places in the USA that have the highest per capita gun ownership tend to have the lowest rates of homicide. (typically rural areas). Places that tend to have relatively low amounts of per capita gun ownership tend to have higher rates of homicides. (typically urban/intercity areas).

And again that is the same with gun laws. Places that have stronger gun laws tend to have also higher rates of gun violence. This is probably due to the fact that:
A. Places that have high violence typically want to create stronger laws as a response.
B. Stronger gun laws have little to no effect.



Places that after inacting guns laws that show drops in overal violence does will generally have coorisponding drops in violence in places that do not pass laws. The laws and the drop are generally just a coincidence.

And on the flip side there are fairly spectacular increases in violence after passing gun laws that compelled law abiding people to turn into their firearms.

One of the most famous of these gun control failures happenned in Australia. Within 12 months of banning firearms..
Overall homicides up 3.2%
Assults up 8.4%
Armed robberies up 44%
And specificly in the state of Victoria gun homicides went up 300%.



People have this very wrong concept that if there is a problem in your society then the best thing to do is pass government laws. This is very flawed thought proccess...

Like I said before if you want to figure out a solution to the the problem of gun violence then you are better off targetting and figuring out solutions to drug problems and illicit drug trafficing in USA cities.

This is the serious problem that causes the vast majority of problems in this country.

But of course this isn't as popular as saying 'lets ban guns' because it requires a *gasp* jump of logic.

And also as shown by drug laws the problem is not only unaffected by laws banning items, it is likely exasperated by our current laws.

I agree banning guns wont stem the tide of violence but flooding the streets with guns is insane. We are a very violent nation/culture so lets not pour more fuel onto the fire please. Lets do something about the real issue which is the heavily entrenched culture of violence in our nation. We need to address the reasons and causes of violence and rage in our nation IMHO. Though I do remember reading somewhere that states with strong gun laws have been noted by law enforcement studies to have lower rates of gun related crimes versus those with loose gun laws. I can't remember were I read this but if someone can post the rates of gun related crimes by state that would be appreciated.

There are a few sources dealing with gun/crime research but you need to be careful interpreting it. Unfortunately you're recalling the results backwards (at least from any of the studies I've read).

John Lott's work shows a strong correlation between permissiveness of gun rights and low violent crime rates, however property crimes in those states tend to be higher. This can't be taken as gospel however since in his model he didn't control for socio-economic status and other factors which affect various types of crime.

Vermont, which allows anyone aged 16 or older to carry openly or concealed without restriction, has a very low rate of violent crime (among the lowest in the nation), but again you need to examine the demographics of Vermont to fully understand the results.

Crime has been on a downward trend in America for quite a while, and that trend continues even though gun rights are sharply increasing (number of 'shall-issue' states, castle doctrine states, etc). While it isn't enough to say that the open gun rules are reducing the crime, it is enough to say that open gun rules don't increase crime.

More important, in my opinion, is to examine things such as:

* number of times a gun is used correctly each year versus the number of times it's used for a negative purpose

* percentage of CPL holders committing a crime

* basic rights (not just federal constitution, but state constitutions and just plain inherent human rights as well)

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
The thread's title is a logical 'no ******' touted by the pro-gun lobby (i.e. NRA), but today's tragic news from Va Tech hit close to home since a lot of us are either students or were students recently. Many campuses pride themselves on being gun-free; it's basically impossible to legally own a gun on most (all?) campuses today.

If there had been other students armed when this insanity went down, do you think the death toll would be higher or lower? What say you about restricting the 2nd Amendment?

I think we would have these kinds of killing on a daily basis if everyone in every classroom in the country were armed. What a ****** idea that would be, yeah, our drunk college population should all be armed. Can someone answer me this, why does this only happen in the USA?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Balt
Errrr... I hope someone won't seriously suggest that students should be allowed to bring guns to campus and the classroom.

It might have led to a smaller death toll today, but I guarantee there would be a lot more school-related shootings over the course of a year and there would be more fatalities.

Show us at least 1 case in history where tighter gun laws have produced less crime. While your at it, look up how greater rates of CCW's reduce gun crime.

Go back to your old ban. :roll:

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
The thread's title is a logical 'no ******' touted by the pro-gun lobby (i.e. NRA), but today's tragic news from Va Tech hit close to home since a lot of us are either students or were students recently. Many campuses pride themselves on being gun-free; it's basically impossible to legally own a gun on most (all?) campuses today.

If there had been other students armed when this insanity went down, do you think the death toll would be higher or lower? What say you about restricting the 2nd Amendment?

I think we would have these kinds of killing on a daily basis if everyone in every classroom in the country were armed. What a ****** idea that would be, yeah, our drunk college population should all be armed. Can someone answer me this, why does this only happen in the USA?

As already shown by numerous posters it doesn't, it happens all over the world. It just happens more here.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Balt
Errrr... I hope someone won't seriously suggest that students should be allowed to bring guns to campus and the classroom.

It might have led to a smaller death toll today, but I guarantee there would be a lot more school-related shootings over the course of a year and there would be more fatalities.

Show us at least 1 case in history where tighter gun laws have produced less crime. While your at it, look up how greater rates of CCW's reduce gun crime.

I will trust my own eyes and experience in this case. I was in university not so long ago and it is a place where there are many young, foolish, and naive people. One of them may get an "F" on a test or get dumped by their girlfriend and they think their entire life is ruined. Plenty of them get wasted frequently and thus have impaired judgment. Simply put, most people who are in college haven't finished the process of "growing up" yet.

Allowing such people to have a gun in their backpack or dorm room would be idiotic.

If they want a gun or get crazy enough to kill, they will do it regardless of the gun laws.

Got some stats to back that bullshit up? Sorry, but try again.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
The thread's title is a logical 'no ******' touted by the pro-gun lobby (i.e. NRA), but today's tragic news from Va Tech hit close to home since a lot of us are either students or were students recently. Many campuses pride themselves on being gun-free; it's basically impossible to legally own a gun on most (all?) campuses today.

If there had been other students armed when this insanity went down, do you think the death toll would be higher or lower? What say you about restricting the 2nd Amendment?

I think we would have these kinds of killing on a daily basis if everyone in every classroom in the country were armed. What a ****** idea that would be, yeah, our drunk college population should all be armed. Can someone answer me this, why does this only happen in the USA?

As already shown by numerous posters it doesn't, it happens all over the world. It just happens more here.

Well no crap, yes, it HAS happened in other coutries but the number of mass killing in our schools can only be helped by arming more students!

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Balt
Errrr... I hope someone won't seriously suggest that students should be allowed to bring guns to campus and the classroom.

It might have led to a smaller death toll today, but I guarantee there would be a lot more school-related shootings over the course of a year and there would be more fatalities.

Show us at least 1 case in history where tighter gun laws have produced less crime. While your at it, look up how greater rates of CCW's reduce gun crime.

I will trust my own eyes and experience in this case. I was in university not so long ago and it is a place where there are many young, foolish, and naive people. One of them may get an "F" on a test or get dumped by their girlfriend and they think their entire life is ruined. Plenty of them get wasted frequently and thus have impaired judgment. Simply put, most people who are in college haven't finished the process of "growing up" yet.

Allowing such people to have a gun in their backpack or dorm room would be idiotic.

If they want a gun or get crazy enough to kill, they will do it regardless of the gun laws.

Got some stats to back that bullshit up? Sorry, but try again.

Sure thing you ignorant dickwad:

London shooting

Dunblane shooting

I'd say the UK is about as strict as you can get on gun laws. If you have another country in mind that's more strict, let's hear it and I'll link you the shootings that occurred there.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
The thread's title is a logical 'no ******' touted by the pro-gun lobby (i.e. NRA), but today's tragic news from Va Tech hit close to home since a lot of us are either students or were students recently. Many campuses pride themselves on being gun-free; it's basically impossible to legally own a gun on most (all?) campuses today.

If there had been other students armed when this insanity went down, do you think the death toll would be higher or lower? What say you about restricting the 2nd Amendment?

I think we would have these kinds of killing on a daily basis if everyone in every classroom in the country were armed. What a ****** idea that would be, yeah, our drunk college population should all be armed. Can someone answer me this, why does this only happen in the USA?

As already shown by numerous posters it doesn't, it happens all over the world. It just happens more here.

Well no crap, yes, it HAS happened in other coutries but the number of mass killing in our schools can only be helped by arming more students!

Got some stats to back that bullshit up? Sorry, but try again.

Sound familiar? Prove to me that my carrying in class would cause incidents when it hasn't caused any incidents any where else I carry (which is everywhere btw). Refute the enormous body of evidence in this thread showing how safe CPL holders are. Come up with something of substance to actually debate because right now you're just spewing and we're totally creaming you with facts.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Not that I think it's necessarily more than a knee-jerk reaction, but is there any purpose whatsoever to high capacity magazines, other than killing a lot of things quickly?

The purpose of a magazine is so that you do not have to reload the firearm as often.

Also shooting does not necessarily mean killing. I have an AK style rifle with 30 and 40 round magazines I havent killed anyone with them.

Yup, all mine are still in their cases locked away where I left them. I keep checking on them periodically, they are sneaky, esp the black ones.

Until I can carry on campus, should this happen in my classroom, if I must be one of the victims, it won't be until after the prick at least gets a 3.5" legal length blade buried in his skull.

Um, okay.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Soybomb
I'm all ears, please elaborate/clarify.

The question was whether there was a purpose to high capacity magazines, other than being able to kill more things.

So far the response seems to be 'i can shoot more shots', which is obvious, and 'but the cops have them' which isn't what I asked.

Being able to shoot more without reloading is fine, but while I don't want to make a '640k' kind of statement here, it seems to me that if you don't hit your legitimate target with the first 10 shots, you're probably either not very good (and therefore dangerous) or shooting at something beyond your skill.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Balt
Errrr... I hope someone won't seriously suggest that students should be allowed to bring guns to campus and the classroom.

It might have led to a smaller death toll today, but I guarantee there would be a lot more school-related shootings over the course of a year and there would be more fatalities.

Show us at least 1 case in history where tighter gun laws have produced less crime. While your at it, look up how greater rates of CCW's reduce gun crime.

I will trust my own eyes and experience in this case. I was in university not so long ago and it is a place where there are many young, foolish, and naive people. One of them may get an "F" on a test or get dumped by their girlfriend and they think their entire life is ruined. Plenty of them get wasted frequently and thus have impaired judgment. Simply put, most people who are in college haven't finished the process of "growing up" yet.

Allowing such people to have a gun in their backpack or dorm room would be idiotic.

If they want a gun or get crazy enough to kill, they will do it regardless of the gun laws.

Got some stats to back that bullshit up? Sorry, but try again.

The majority of gun murders\deaths in this country are done with illegally obtained guns. So, no gun law is going to stop that crime from happening. To think otherwise is bullshit.

http://www.pistolwimp.com/media/60509/

If I were you, pay special attention about 19 minutes in. They speak about gun free zones and what a completely useless idea it has been.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: her209
Hmmm... I wonder if all the students bumrushed the gunman instead of trying to get away, how many less students would have died?

They couldn't do that in a classroom setting.

The shooter comes in the door with the students sitting like targets.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
As someone pointed out way back at the start of this thread.

Nearly EVERY violent massacre like this ends when someone else with a gun shows up.

Columbine ended when the SWAT showed up and the kids killed themselves, although it may have ended before that.
There was a case in Tenn I believe where a Vice Principle ran to his car and get his gun and confronted a kid who had shot some people, the kid gave up.
The Long Island train shooting ended when the shooter ran out of bullets and was tackled by people in the train, if someone else had a gun it would have ended sooner.

This incident ended when the SWAT teams showed up and the guy killed himself.

Having more guns around will not stop events like this from starting, but they will help end them faster.

Very rare occurence that PJ and I are on same page.

 

[CyberDuck]

Originally posted by: kmmatney

Here is a good site with a lot of stats either way. Pretty interesting - Norway and Finland have a high rate of gun ownership, but low gun homicide rates.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

The U.S, has the highest gun homicide rate for every country with gun stats, except N. Ireland. It basically looks like gun homiocide has more to do with social issues, rather than gun ownership, but I'd still like it harder for people to have guns...

Hi, im from Norway, and indeed there are a lot of guns found spread around in the population. However, the guns are owned for other purposes than in th U.S. We don't have a culture of fear of our own population, and no culture for using guns for self defence. Guns owned by normal people are either for hunting or for target shooting. Its illegal to carry any weapon in public places, including knifes and similar. Weapons have to be safely stored in homes, locked down and empty of ammo. To buy a gun you have to apply for permission and site you intended use, limit 18 years. To buy a pistol you have to be a trained member of a pistol club (for 6 months) and be over 21 years. In fact not even the police are alowed to carry weapons without special permission from their bosses.
Se, we have strict laws, many weapons, but no weapons in public. As an example, i have newer seen anyone, exept in the army, in my 37 year life carry what you over there will call a "side arm" in my country. I hope ths explains a little bit about the difference in gun culture between our nations.

Regards

Jostein

 

[sweetpea70512]

Many campuses pride themselves on being gun-free; it's basically impossible to legally own a gun on most (all?) campuses today.

Point of the thread........only the outlaw had a gun and that made this easy....I am not advocating that students shound carry guns but someone other than the outlaws need to have them Guns don't kill people....People do.:shocked:

 

[fallenangel99]

I bet this whole gun law thing will turn quickly into "should resident aliens be allowed to have guns" since the shooter is an Asian and a Resident Alien.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: fallenangel99
I bet this whole gun law thing will turn quickly into "should resident aliens be allowed to have guns" since the shooter is an Asian and a Resident Alien.

I hope so. It only makes sense.

But the devious anti-gun weasels will take advantage of this situation to try and push through more stringent comprehensive anti-gun laws furthering infringing on our 2nd amendment rights. They are the scum of the Earth as they are the only ones happy when incidents such as this happen.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: fallenangel99
I bet this whole gun law thing will turn quickly into "should resident aliens be allowed to have guns" since the shooter is an Asian and a Resident Alien.

I hope so. It only makes sense.

But the devious anti-gun weasels will take advantage of this situation to try and push through more stringent comprehensive anti-gun laws furthering infringing on our 2nd amendment rights. They are the scum of the Earth as they are the only ones happy when incidents such as this happen.

Let me ask you a simple question....

You are a police officer responding to a call of a shooting. You get there and find 6 people with guns. Do you shoot them all first and then find out who is the "real" shooter or do you kindly ask them if they are your intended target and then risk getting shot yourself?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Soybomb
I'm all ears, please elaborate/clarify.

The question was whether there was a purpose to high capacity magazines, other than being able to kill more things.

So far the response seems to be 'i can shoot more shots', which is obvious, and 'but the cops have them' which isn't what I asked.

Being able to shoot more without reloading is fine, but while I don't want to make a '640k' kind of statement here, it seems to me that if you don't hit your legitimate target with the first 10 shots, you're probably either not very good (and therefore dangerous) or shooting at something beyond your skill.

Personally, I don't see the need for hi cap mags for handguns. I only have 10 rd mags for both of my handguns, and if ever the need arose for me to use them, having one or two more rounds available probably won't be a deal breaker. If I can't stop my attackers with 10 rounds, I probably won't with 15 either.

That said for anybody who wants to kill people, as this guy obviously did, lack of mag capacity isn't going to stop them from accomplishing their goal. You can easily carry 6 spare mags in just the pockets of everyday clothing. Swapping mags only takes a couple seconds. One click with the thumb to drop the mag, new mag in, a quick flip of the thumb to chamber the first round. Chances are that any shooter would take more time between each shot than the time it would require to reload, so don't imagine for a second that there's some magical moment where the hero can grab the guy while he's reloading.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: fallenangel99
I bet this whole gun law thing will turn quickly into "should resident aliens be allowed to have guns" since the shooter is an Asian and a Resident Alien.

I hope so. It only makes sense.

But the devious anti-gun weasels will take advantage of this situation to try and push through more stringent comprehensive anti-gun laws furthering infringing on our 2nd amendment rights. They are the scum of the Earth as they are the only ones happy when incidents such as this happen.

Let me ask you a simple question....

You are a police officer responding to a call of a shooting. You get there and find 6 people with guns. Do you shoot them all first and then find out who is the "real" shooter or do you kindly ask them if they are your intended target and then risk getting shot yourself?

Anyone stupid enough to have a gun in their hands when police arrive at the scene of a shooting deserves to get killed. It isn't rocket science, and it isn't any reason not to allow those of us with experience, training, and permits to carry.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Well no crap, yes, it HAS happened in other coutries but the number of mass killing in our schools can only be helped by arming more students!

The stupidity of that statement is that the murderers will always find ways to obtain guns no matter how much you ban them from doing it. Supposedly it's against the law to murder 32 people, did that law stop him? No, it did not, just as gun laws mostly strip guns from those who would use them defensively to save lives.

You can not stop people from going berserk and finding the means to succeed in slaughter. The best you can hope for are the means to stop it quickly, and prevent repeat offenses from the same animal.

Now I?m conflicted, I honestly am. I would much rather combat someone wielding a knife, confident in the belief that they?ve no freaking clue how to wield it properly. Problem is, there?s no way to ban guns. We?ve banned drugs, but there are still dugs everywhere.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: fallenangel99
I bet this whole gun law thing will turn quickly into "should resident aliens be allowed to have guns" since the shooter is an Asian and a Resident Alien.

I hope so. It only makes sense.

But the devious anti-gun weasels will take advantage of this situation to try and push through more stringent comprehensive anti-gun laws furthering infringing on our 2nd amendment rights. They are the scum of the Earth as they are the only ones happy when incidents such as this happen.

Let me ask you a simple question....

You are a police officer responding to a call of a shooting. You get there and find 6 people with guns. Do you shoot them all first and then find out who is the "real" shooter or do you kindly ask them if they are your intended target and then risk getting shot yourself?

If there are six people with guns, then the violence has already ended. CCW holders only draw to kill. There are no standoffs, despite what ignorant gun-haters have been convinced by Hollywood.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: fallenangel99
I bet this whole gun law thing will turn quickly into "should resident aliens be allowed to have guns" since the shooter is an Asian and a Resident Alien.

I hope so. It only makes sense.

But the devious anti-gun weasels will take advantage of this situation to try and push through more stringent comprehensive anti-gun laws furthering infringing on our 2nd amendment rights. They are the scum of the Earth as they are the only ones happy when incidents such as this happen.

Let me ask you a simple question....

You are a police officer responding to a call of a shooting. You get there and find 6 people with guns. Do you shoot them all first and then find out who is the "real" shooter or do you kindly ask them if they are your intended target and then risk getting shot yourself?

They should surrender to the authority of the officer.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: fallenangel99
I bet this whole gun law thing will turn quickly into "should resident aliens be allowed to have guns" since the shooter is an Asian and a Resident Alien.

He was 24 yrs old, hardly a kid anymore.

The guns had the serial numbers etched out.

This guy was going to get guns no matter what.

Again, too bad no one else had a gun to give the rest a chance against this nutball.

 

[Vic]

South Korean national here on a visa with an illegal gun. Yeah, I think all the anti-gunners' arguments, from "culture of fear" and so on, just went right out the window (no pun intended).