There's no such thing as a "stray dagger" killing anyone.

[Mad Mike]

My boss is from the UK. She lived here the past 16 or so years and just moved back. She told me that despite the gun ban, gun violence is bad and violence in general is VERY bad. She said she felt much safer here in the US than she does now living in the UK.

People die from all sorts of things. Stray bullets, stray cars... You cant ban everything. And the fact is that in every case where guns have been banned, the criminals still get them while the law abiding citizens are left defenseless.

And BTW. It was a person who pulled the trigger on the gun who killed someone with a stray bullet. The gun did not shoot itself.

[Mad Mike]

But guns give stupid people a very, very easy way to harm others, and that's the problem. And we cannot control the flow of arms to these stupid people when they are so prevalent in our country. Worst of all, most of the time we can't tell who is stupid enough to own a gun, so people who are dangerous to society can buy the weapon "legally."

Cars in the hands of stupid people kill far more people than guns. Let's ban cars too.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The arguments about people getting killed in other freak accidents is the epitome of a "straw man." How about some debate on the issue of gun control. It's not persuasive to say there are other problems as well.

[Thiebear]

Abstract:

Few events obtain the same instant worldwide news coverage as multiple victim public shootings. These crimes allow us to study the alternative methods used to kill a large number of people (e.g., shootings versus bombings), marginal deterrence and the severity of the crime, substitutability of penalties, private versus public methods of deterrence and incapacitation, and whether attacks produce "copycats." The criminals who commit these crimes are also fairly unusual, recent evidence suggests that about half of these criminals have received a "formal diagnosis of mental illness, often schizophrenia." Yet, economists have not studied multiple victim shootings. Using data that extends until 1999 and includes the recent public school shootings, our results are surprising and dramatic. While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce "normal" murder rates and these attacks lead to new calls from more gun control, our results find that the only policy factor to have a consistently significant influence on multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws. We explain why public shootings are more sensitive than other violent crimes to concealed handguns, why the laws reduce the number of shootings and have an even greater effect on their severity.

University of Chicago and Maryland.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=272929#PaperDownload

[Popeman38]

The arguments about people getting killed in other freak accidents is the epitome of a "straw man." How about some debate on the issue of gun control. It's not persuasive to say there are other problems as well.

Actually, I agree. One is a Constitutionally guarenteed right, and the others are privilidges granted by the state. So we would be much better off outlawing the others, but that would encroach on your conveniences while oultlawing guns would encroach on the Constsitution. And we all know that convenience is more importanmt than a silly little paper. :doh:

Talk about a straw man....

[TrumanB]

I say we ban stupidity. That would solve most of our problems.

[Mad Mike]

I say we ban stupidity. That would solve most of our problems.

If only we could. :laugh:

[Destino]

I always find it interesting in threads like these that people will state their position on the political issue of gun control but fail to apply it to the situation being discussed.

I'm for gun control because guns kill people, some will say. How exactly would that position have prevented this incident? Was the gun legally obtained? If not gun control is unlikely to have prevented this at all unless you somehow removed, physically, all the guns in the US and stopped illegal guns at the border.

Guns don't kill people criminals with guns kill people, others will say. The pro-gun argument is simple, if criminals have guns and we don't than we are at their mercy. This is a valid argument but we need a way to disarm criminals. Currently there isn't one. A better tracking system of all firearms could help but it would be strongly opposed of course under the argument that it's the first step in disarming all of us.

And so we continue forward without change.

[PleaseBlitz]

Cars in the hands of stupid people kill far more people than guns. Let's ban cars too.

Cars are useful and necessary. Guns have one purpose: to kill things.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Adams was charged Monday with attempted murder, robbery, evading a police officer, driving recklessly and being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm, Oakland Police Department spokesman Roland Holmgren told CNN.....

....Authorities found a ski mask, loaded gun and cash at the scene. Adams has prior convictions for driving under the influence and gun possession, records show. He pleaded no contest to felony evading arrest in 2006 for fleeing an Emeryville police officer and had run from or physically resisted a California Highway Patrol officer and police in Albany and Berkeley, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Somebody want to tell me what this sack of **** was doing out on the streets and NOT in a prison? Evading arrest, fleeing a police officer, illegal gun possession, resisting arrest (multiple times); why would we want that sort of worthless waste of flesh and oxygen actually LOCKED UP and out of society?

You want to blame somebody for this tragedy.... blame the system that no longer PUNISHES criminals for their indiscressions. Until you find one of these incidents where the person discharging the firearm has NO serious misdemeanors or felonies on their record, I'm not even going to listen to the complaint about the firearm used in the incident.

"FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS."

[Destino]

Cars are useful and necessary. Guns have one purpose: to kill things.

cars have one purpose: to kill things.

lol sorry just sounded funny in my head :laugh:

[GibbsFactor]

But we see that gun control doesn't work. Guns exist. Everywhere. It's the simple truth. Where and when has controlling them ever worked out?

I'm all for stopping these senseless acts of crime. But how do we do that? Look what happens in DC when we try to control guns. They still exist. People that use these guns in a commission of a crime almost always get them from the black market.

Show me a legit way to lower these crimes and I'd be all for it. By showing criminals that the chance of only them having a weapon greatly encourages them to brandish the firearm. We can't get rid of them. We can't control them.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

The pro-gun argument is simple, if criminals have guns and we don't than we are at their mercy. This is a valid argument but we need a way to disarm criminals. Currently there isn't one.

YES THERE IS!!!!

It's called the United States Prison System. Put the criminals in jail and throw away the key. Take the violent criminals and put them out of our misery through that system.

[Destino]

"FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS."

the only thing we need to do to take your guns away is have the government provide free health care to anyone that owns guns.

[Destino]

YES THERE IS!!!!

It's called the United States Prison System. Put the criminals in jail and throw away the key. Take the violent criminals and put them out of our misery through that system.

Mass slow down and think, a violent criminal is someone that has already hurt someone. We already know we can punish people AFTER the crime. The aim is to reduce gun violence - they are seeking to do something BEFORE the crime.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Mass slow down and think, a violent criminal is someone that has already hurt someone. We already know we can punish people AFTER the crime. The aim is to reduce gun violence - they are seeking to do something BEFORE the crime.

Destino, you and I both know that there's nothing any of us can do that is truly going to stop gun violence. Criminals are going to get firearms no matter what we do. Restricting the ability of law-abiding people to get firearms is not going to stop that. All it's going to do is to create even more potential victims for the armed criminals.

Hell, if I were the kid's parent I'd be very vocally asking the gas station company why their clerk wasn't armed and trained how to deal with this sort of situation.

the only thing we need to do to take your guns away is have the government provide free health care to anyone that owns guns.

No. That would just ensure that I don't get any health care for whatever amount of time I have left in my life; because I would refuse any medical care in that situation, not get rid of the firearms.

[GibbsFactor]

Mass slow down and think, a violent criminal is someone that has already hurt someone. We already know we can punish people AFTER the crime. The aim is to reduce gun violence - they are seeking to do something BEFORE the crime.

So you let everyone carry, and if you shoot someone you go to jail for a minimum 10 years. If you kill someone, minimum 20 years.

If people still commit these senseless crimes, nothing we can do would stop them anyways.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Actually, I agree. One is a Constitutionally guarenteed right, and the others are privilidges granted by the state. So we would be much better off outlawing the others, but that would encroach on your conveniences while oultlawing guns would encroach on the Constsitution. And we all know that convenience is more importanmt than a silly little paper. :doh:

Talk about a straw man....

First off, if you want to have a real debate, try to spell some of those "big words" correctly. Because right now, what you wrote makes me think you don't know what you are talking about.

Second of all, what you just did was the straw man argument. You dodge the issue of gun control by saying that its not fair to take away a right when we don't take away privileges.

Just debate the issue that is being discussed: whether or not there should be tighter GUN control, and what that should entail. Otherwise, you're like that kid who says "I know I was wrong, but Billy was more wrong."

[Rumrunner6900]

Was the gun used by the criminal obtained legally?

This question needs to be answered......

I would wager that the answer is "no"

And if it is no, would tighter gun control laws have helped in any way whatsoever?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This question needs to be answered......

I would wager that the answer is "no"

And if it is no, would tighter gun control laws have helped in any way whatsoever?

Ok, to dive into this one:

If the gun control laws were tight enough to make it impossible to obtain a gun legally, then yes. Because I'm willing to bet the gun was obtained legally.

Plus, to the generality of the problem, tighter gun control laws would reduce the supply and demand overall of guns in this country. If people can't legally buy them, people wouldn't make them.

[GibbsFactor]

Ok, to dive into this one:

If the gun control laws were tight enough to make it impossible to obtain a gun legally, then yes. Because I'm willing to bet the gun was obtained legally.

Plus, to the generality of the problem, tighter gun control laws would reduce the supply and demand overall of guns in this country.

Because it's easier for a 17 year old to buy a six pack then a dime bag. :doh:

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Because it's easier for a 17 year old to buy a six pack then a dime bag. :doh:

What does that have to do with gun control? NOTHING. Please stay on topic.

Or are you saying that it is ok for a 17 year old to be able to buy either? These arguments make no sense when you follow them through.

[Rumrunner6900]

Ok, to dive into this one:

If the gun control laws were tight enough to make it impossible to obtain a gun legally, then yes. Because I'm willing to bet the gun was obtained legally.

Plus, to the generality of the problem, tighter gun control laws would reduce the supply and demand overall of guns in this country. If people can't legally buy them, people wouldn't make them.

That really doesn't have any bearing on anything right now. There are already gun control laws in the books, along with other various laws of who can possess/sell/ or buy a handgun.

If these laws currently aren't being enforced, how are piling more on top of them going to help anything?

As to your argument about supply and demand, I highly disagree with what you say. If anything, generally making something harder to get makes a person want it more. Especially a person with ill intentions.

[GibbsFactor]

What does that have to do with gun control? NOTHING. Please stay on topic.

Or are you saying that it is ok for a 17 year old to be able to buy either? These arguments make no sense when you follow them through.

It's easier for a teenager to get a hold of weed then beer. All you have to do with weed is find a supplier. With beer, you have to find a legal buyer. In other words, the fact that beer is legal with restraints makes it harder to buy for those not allowed to buy it. Since weed is illegal, it's everywhere and there's not moral objection to selling to a kid because it's illegal to posess in the first place.

If you take that same logic and apply it to guns, it would be easier to obtain a firearm if they were illegal. They aren't going to stop being made. We've proven we can't stop plants from entering this country, who thinks we'd stop guns? They exist and aren't going away.

Now, if you made gun ownership illegal accross the nation, I'm sure the amount of weapons would eventually go down. But not for 100 years. In the meantime, you'd have people that illegally own weapons being able to use them because a. they would not worry about getting return fire and b. it would be much harder to track where the gun is, who owns the gun, etc...

We just can't get rid of them. If it's illegal, only the criminals would have them. And that's something I don't want to see happen.

[Destino]

So you let everyone carry, and if you shoot someone you go to jail for a minimum 10 years. If you kill someone, minimum 20 years.

If people still commit these senseless crimes, nothing we can do would stop them anyways.

I was thinking more along the lines of, track and license firearms to whoever wants one and anyone caught with an illegal firearm getting 5 years min. Anyone caught trafficing illegal firearms gets 30 years. Something needs to be done to get guns out of the hands of criminals because allowing everyone to carry solves nothing at all, it's a reactionary measure.

Sorry but this notion that guns are this holy thing that the government shouldn't even look at it absurd. It's an industry that needs to be put in control.