Gun rights/control/ownership

[Trope]

This is one of the topics I can't really choose sides on, mainly because I live in Belgium and guns are not allowed here. Obviously, there are exceptions if you hold a license, etc. Then again, shooting someone even in self defense will get you in jail here, so meh.

 

As for the USA, I understand both sides. If you're used to carrying a weapon, it provides a sense of security. On the other side, if very little people have access to guns chances of people actually shooting each other are smaller.

 

Then again, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if people would just use their guns responsibly. It's always the few who decide to abuse their right who put every gun owner in a bad daylight.

[Slaskia]

Interesting article on theBlaze this morning: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/could-the-...igure-says-yes/

 

“Events like this,” I said, “if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn’t have messed with me. I’ll go out in a blaze of glory.”

 

Makes sense to me. Unfortunately, 'bad' news sells and gets them ratings, while 'good' news (like stories where people successfully detered a crime with a gun) generally only has a chance to be shown on a very slow news day, if that.

 

Me, I hate guns: I consider them a cowards weapon in many cases. I also won't even touch one if I have a choice in the matter (yeah I had to deal with it anyway when in the military. I can still likely completely strip down an M16 and put it back together again no prob though). I do 'respect' them for what they are capable of (btw, yes, guns can kill, but you don't have to purposely aim to kill with them. Shooting in the arms/legs can work to, depending on the situation. Though you'd have to override the 'always aim for center mass' training to do it).

 

That said, I am someone that will say all guns need to be banned (hell, my family owns a few). Some form of control is needed to help keep them out of the wrong hands, but let's be realistic here. If someone really wants a gun, they will get one, either off the blackmarket, from a neighbhor/friend selling it to him, or outright stealing it from someone else (the last being the case with the latest school shooting: perp stole the weapons from his mother's house).

Edited December 17, 2012 by Slaskia

[Vhale]

You said that arming every teacher wasn't practical. I agree. We're not trying to make every teacher in the nation carry a gun, we want the responsible ones to be ALLOWED to.

 

 

I make far less than a teacher and I manage to afford guns. You may not be able to imagine it, but I guess you've never met a responsible gun owner who does exactly that.

And how do you decide who is responsible? I'm curious what your ideal would be. My entire family is gun owners and several are teachers. And I can't say I'd want all of them carrying guns around kids. The idea is anything but comforting. Legally, I don't see how they'd be stopped if it was encouraged.

 

Would I get to make an anonymous complaint against them if they tried? Or would I have to trot out 3 decades of familial dirt and still get not much accomplished? How would one go about stopping an irresponsible gun owner from packing heat in a school?

[philpot123]

And how do you decide who is responsible? 

First, the 2nd Amendment. I have a right to bear arms that shall not be infringed.

 

Second, state laws. States have already said that certain people are legally allowed to carry handguns. I just want that legal ability to carry to be extended into the places where clearly they would be the most needed in a time of crisis. Again, are you denying that one teacher with a handgun in that school COULD have saved lives?

 

I, MYSELF would not be deciding anything about who is "responsible." That's up to state legislature.

Edited December 17, 2012 by philpot123

[Shienvien]

Me, I hate guns: I consider them a cowards weapon in many cases.

Better to be coward than dead, or with dead dear ones. When I speak of carrying guns for protection I do not mean one should go and confront the person who is breaking into your house (unless you, say, have sleeping children in the other room or similar). No, you take the gun out, and you try to retreat quietly and unnoticed. If you have already been noticed, the gun is there more to intimidate, and only be fired when the other refuses to stay back / draws a weapon of one's own on you.

 

Erm, and yeah - in the end, my gun is still mainly for target practice, not for potential dangerous situations.

[hazeh]

Again, are you denying that one teacher with a handgun in that school COULD have saved lives?

 

Possibly. But would you deny that stricter gun control that would have kept the weapons out of Lanza's hands in the first place could have saved all of them?

[KageSora]

In case you are only using the gun for intimidation, you aren't killing anyone, either. It is also entirely possible to actually shoot a person and not kill them. In fact, unless you hit the brain/heart/aorta/spine at the neck, the chance of them surviving is quite high if you call emergency services immediately when you are no longer in direct danger.

 

Self-defense is not magic. I for example know self-defense, and I still would probably have died by knife if the person I went to help had not recovered sufficiently to aid me in return.

You can bet that most of the attackers also know how to fight.

Oh, I know that not all gunshot wounds are fatal. But, seriously, if your attacker DOES intend to use the gun for more than intimidation, what are the odds they'll shoot you once in a non-life-threatening area that will still allow you to get away and then simply let you get to a safe distance to get medical attention?

 

If you shoot your attacker, sure, you could call for help for them--that's assuming you can shoot them before they shoot/stab/otherwise injury and/or incapacitate you, of course. And it's great if you can disable them but not kill them. But I find that it's pretty rare to see somebody who's pro-gun (especially the more rabid ones) actually talking about using their gun to stall or disable their attacker instead of killing them. More often than not, it's "I'm ready to shoot to kill if I'm attacked". I'm not saying all pro-gun people are like that--just almost all the ones I see. Or, if they don't explicitly state that, their wording implies they'd prefer to kill than to disable. I think it would be extremely helpful if pro-gun people would put more emphasis on the idea of using a gun to disable or distract before resorting to killing. That might make some of the more aggressive anti-gun people less disagreeable to the idea of guns.

 

Maybe it's just the places I see people talking about it, or maybe I've just been unlucky enough to mostly see the rabid people talking about it (the people in this topic, generally, have been more sensible than people I've seen elsewhere, even if I don't fully agree with them. I'm happy for that! Sensible gun owners are great, rabid ones are not.)

 

If they are using it for intimidation, mistakes can still happen--it could be more dangerous to try and defend yourself if you have an untrained or unskilled gunman because they might have the gun ready to fire and shoot by mistake. Or they could have it not loaded.

 

I also never said that self-defense was magic. It most certainly is not guaranteed to get you out of a bad situation, especially not if your attacker knows how to fight (which I'm sure they know some sort of fighting--but what kind? How much experience do they have? Is it an untrained street thug who's just mugging you because it's a crime of opportunity? Do they have some sort of professional weapons training to use whatever weapon they're wielding? Do they have some form of martial arts training? Or are they a high school kid who's only fighting comes from schoolyard bouts? That, too, will greatly factor into how well any method of self-defense will work, naturally).

 

 

Self-defense is not a magical perfect solution. But, knowing it can help, and can save your life depending on the situation. Just like having a gun. Having a gun does not automatically guarantee that you will be able to get out of any attack unharmed or that you'll even survive--you could very well die even if you're armed and ready. There are many variables that go into determining who comes out of an attack the worse off--and how much worse off they are.

 

There is no magic way to protect yourself from an attack.

 

But certain things can help in certain situations. Knowing self-defense is a good thing even if you carry a gun, for an attack that doesn't give you an opportunity to use your gun to defend yourself.

 

I just brought it up because, as I said, it can help. It won't always help, but, just like carrying a gun, it does have the potential to save your life.

 

Of course, you can use your body as a lethal weapon, too. You can kill your attacker with your bare hands if you know how, after all.

 

So both methods can prove fatal to somebody. Both methods can be used to disable. Each will work better in different situations.

 

I was mostly just trying to point out that having a gun isn't the only way to survive being attacked.

 

 

But, like I also said, I'm definitely not in the "ban all guns" camp. There are definitely places a gun would be more useful than other forms of defending yourself. I'd rather see a solution that works to address keeping guns from the hands of people who shouldn't have them while still allowing the people who can own them and be sensible about it to obtain and continue to legally keep them.

 

And a solution that works to address getting the guns out of the hands of people who legally obtained them but are no longer fit to carry them.

[philpot123]

Possibly. But would you deny that stricter gun control that would have kept the weapons out of Lanza's hands in the first place could have saved all of them?

There's a possibility he might have been hindered in obtaining certain kinds of guns, but I believe even with stricter gun control laws, there are enough guns available in the states to where gun violence like this would not stop. And as the school stabbing rampage in China the same day showed, people who want to cause harm will cause harm. I would rather have the means to stop them than to be disarmed.

[dark_kitsune]

And, that also fully depends on how "armed" the predator is. Are they relying on brute strength? Then I can, if I know some self-defense, counter that without killing them. Do they have a knife? Again, it may be possible for me to escape without killing them. Do they have some sort of makeshift close-range weapon? Yet again, I could potentially escape without killing them.

 

Even if they had a gun, I could potentially escape with my life depending on the situation--if they were reluctant to use it, I could possibly, with the right knowledge of self-defense, disarm them and disable them.

 

That's cute. So how about the elderly? The disabled? I'm a middle aged woman with Multiple Sclerosis...my strength is pretty much zero. There is NO way I could fend off an attacker.

 

As for the teachers carrying guns - I think that would be a stellar idea. Of course, not forced on them - but it could be their option to do so. Ever notice how most of the mass shootings happen in "gun free zones"? The shooter knows darn well that he/she will meet no resistance. In Israel, teachers carry...and not too long ago they stopped a couple of armed gunmen.

 

Guns aren't the problem - it's a totally broken mental health system. It's the media turning these whack jobs into anti-hero's and giving them their 15 minutes of fame. It's poor parenting. It's lots of things - but it certainly isn't guns.

[hazeh]

There's a possibility he might have been hindered in obtaining certain kinds of guns, but I believe even with stricter gun control laws, there are enough guns available in the states to where gun violence like this would not stop. And as the school stabbing rampage in China the same day showed, people who want to cause harm will cause harm. I would rather have the means to stop them than to be disarmed.

Ah yes, but all those children survived because he didn't have a gun. Of course people will cause harm if they want to. It's a matter of limiting the amount of harm they can do to an absolute minimum, and if they don't have access to guns, then more lives will be spared.

 

What the government needs to do is implement more gun control, and then retest all registered owners as of current. If a cop sees someone on the street with a weapon, they should be able to confiscate any firearm that cannot be validated with a permit. Stores would need special permits in order to carry and/or sell guns, and a yearly comprehensive and demonstrative test should be taken in order to ensure safety and the owners and those around the owners. Anyone that the gun is not registered to should not be permitted to handle the weapon at all (unless, obviously, a life or death situation calls for it, but that's a matter to be dealt with in court if it is effective).

 

Also I don't really see the point of owning more than one firearm if you're insisting its use is for self-defense only. Obviously hunters or military/ etc would have special permits for more than one weapon, but each firearm would need to be registered.

 

Lanza's mother was a pro-gun enthusiast and it was because of HER that he was able to get his hands on and be able to operate such dangerous weaponry. His lack of mental healthcare obviously caused his mental breakdown in the first place, but this entire incident would have been avoided if Lanza hadn't had such easy access to firearms in the first place. Mental healthcare coupled with strict gun control would have prevented this entire situation.

 

Obviously gun violence will not stop. In the countries with strict gun control, there is still gun violence. But it is severely less, and THAT is a goal we should be striving toward as a country. Making it easier for people to get a hold of guns only encourages frenzied shoot-outs between people that would have otherwise been avoided.

[Vhale]

Looks like MJ did some research on the armed civilian vrs mass shooter topic. It's a long, but interesting article.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/0...s-investigation

 

In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed.

 

 

Also, a Vietnam vet posted his viewpoint on the reality of what happens when you are in a combat situation with guns. Based on a story of how he got into a 3-way firefight with his own forces.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/15/1...-veteran-s-view

 

This one is from a mother who has a child that is violent, and how she is trying to cope with it.

I am Adam Lanza's Mother

[demonicvampiregirl]

Possibly. But would you deny that stricter gun control that would have kept the weapons out of Lanza's hands in the first place could have saved all of them?

Even if you make it illegal to even have a gun in the states if they want to get one and do some damage they will obtain one by any means necessary. Laws will not stop a law breaker at all. They are their to punish those that break them that's it. You can make a thousand laws for owning a gun but someone who wants to murder will do that.

[Mommy_Kitty]

There's a possibility he might have been hindered in obtaining certain kinds of guns, but I believe even with stricter gun control laws, there are enough guns available in the states to where gun violence like this would not stop. And as the school stabbing rampage in China the same day showed, people who want to cause harm will cause harm. I would rather have the means to stop them than to be disarmed.

But if you BAN all GUNS from streets, so no one is allowed to carry one but police, military and some people that have to heve them due to theyr work, and along with the laws that wuld need to be changed to punish the ones that dont obey it, takeing away theyr guns, permits to own it, it will save more lifes than giveing every one permit to carry one. If every one carrying a gun in the streats culd be arested, disarmed, or shoot at so they culd not go on a mass killing spree by police, and they knew they culd go to jail if they are arested lots of attackers wuld not go and try such things.

Ofcourse you cant take all the guns away, but if you ban them from streets you did a huge thing in helping save the lives, and if your point is that criminals will not abide by the laws and still carry a gun in streets, well it is true, but how many of those are true criminals, like maffia, and how many are opurtunists, that will chicken out if laws wuld be tighter. You know that criminals all all ower the world, but yearly mass shooting only happen in US, and in most times they are not done by mafia, bus some mentaly ill person who never broke the law befor, so he was not a criminal befor he killed multiple persons, but a regular cityzen. And if owning and carrying a gun wuld not be so easy as it is 8 out of 10 mass shootings wuld not happen.

 

Even if you make it illegal to even have a gun in the states if they want to get one and do some damage they will obtain one by any means necessary. Laws will not stop a law breaker at all. They are their to punish those that break them that's it. You can make a thousand laws for owning a gun but someone who wants to murder will do that.

How many that were killed in US by guns in a year were killed on purpose of being killed, and i bet you that out of 12k gun kills at least half of them were killed due to roberyes gone wrong, and wuld not have been killed if guns wuld not been so easily to obtain and carry around. And half of the robbers wuld not even go and try to do such things if they wuld not have a gun. I have yet to hear that someone tryed to rob a bank with a knife or basseball bat.

 

Edited December 18, 2012 by Mommy_Kitty

[demonicvampiregirl]

How many that were killed in US by guns in a year were killed on purpose of being killed, and i bet you that out of 12k gun kills at least half of them were killed due to roberyes gone wrong, and wuld not have been killed if guns wuld not been so easily to obtain and carry around. And half of the robbers wuld not even go and try to do such things if they wuld not have a gun. I have yet to hear that someone tryed to rob a bank with a knife or basseball bat.

They bring weapons to threaten and/or USE them. Don't blame a machine for some fools mistake. The user is at fault not some machine that has no will of it's own. Don't blame the gun. Blame the person.

[Mommy_Kitty]

They bring weapons to threaten and/or USE them. Don't blame a machine for some fools mistake. The user is at fault not some machine that has no will of it's own. Don't blame the gun. Blame the person.

You are right, it is the user that kills, but dont tell me that all the murders that happen in US are the ones that were on purpose. How many storyes do we her like this, robbery went wrong and people got killed, and 90% of those were with guns, so it is becouse of guns, and if people culd not walk around with guns less people wuld die.

[demonicvampiregirl]

You are right, it is the user that kills, but dont tell me that all the murders that happen in US are the ones that were on purpose. How many storyes do we her like this, robbery went wrong and people got killed, and 90% of those were with guns, so it is becouse of guns, and if people culd not walk around with guns less people wuld die.

Even if you make it so people can't walk around with them people still WILL. You are thinking that everyone is a law abiding citizen when criminals aren't by any means. Robbery gone wrong or not they brought a weapon they had the intent to use it in some way. Firing it or not they still did it. It was them. Not a machine which sprang into action but the user who did.

 

They brought them for use so yes they was on purpose. You can't "accidentally" shoot someone during a robbery or anything like that. They had the motive, they had the will to pull the trigger even if it was just for a split second which is all it takes to pull a trigger. They still pulled the trigger knowing the other person could die or be severely hurt. They knew from the start what that weapon was capable of and still was willing to use it and they did. That wasn't a accident. That was purely on purpose.

 

(Yes there is cases of a gun going off accidentally due to the safety being off but that is different entirely that is just lack of safety precautions)

[PointOfOrigin]

Just throwing this:

 

You can't compare your situation with Israel. Last time I checked, they were in an open conflict. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a military service obligatory for everyone there? In other words, all of the teachers already know how to use a gun.

 

Guns on the street: from what Philpot said earlier in the thread, over 90% percent of people don't have carry permit. In other words, most people buy guns for house defense and other activities. So that, really isn't that much of a factor. And, if there really is such a big number of people who use it for that purpose, then it seems to me that a big number of people aren't law abiding citizens.

 

Knife comparison: No, it isn't the same. With knife, you have to come close, it's easier to stop a person with a knife, and you can't kill people as fast with a knife. Guns, from the other side, can ensure that you kill more or less unseen (the fact that most mass killers want attention is different matter), from a distance so that people can't approach you fast enough to stop you and much, much faster.

[Mommy_Kitty]

Even if you make it so people can't walk around with them people still WILL. You are thinking that everyone is a law abiding citizen when criminals aren't by any means. Robbery gone wrong or not they brought a weapon they had the intent to use it in some way. Firing it or not they still did it. It was them. Not a machine which sprang into action but the user who did.

 

They brought them for use so yes they was on purpose. You can't "accidentally" shoot someone during a robbery or anything like that. They had the motive, they had the will to pull the trigger even if it was just for a split second which is all it takes to pull a trigger. They still pulled the trigger knowing the other person could die or be severely hurt. They knew from the start what that weapon was capable of and still was willing to use it and they did. That wasn't a accident. That was purely on purpose.

 

(Yes there is cases of a gun going off accidentally due to the safety being off but that is different entirely that is just lack of safety precautions)

Yeah, but an average Joe that robs a local store and has a gun only wants to intimidate with it, his intention is not to kill with it, and this average Joe wuld not do such a thing if he culd not get a gun so easily or carry it around. There are people that will still carry guns around, but i hope for your sakes in US that this is only a handfull of people from wast majority, and if you trully belive that if guns are baned from streets ther wuld still be 1 out of 3 persons carrying it, than something is teribly wrong with US cityzens, and maybe guns shuld not be baned from streets, but people shuld. And if you ask robbers if they wuld do it if they wuld not have a gun at lest 1/3 wuld say that they wuld not, and if crimes drop down 1/3 i think that is a lot. And most of them bough a gun to make a robbery, not to kill people with, just as ppl who say that they bought guns for personal defence, but end up killing other people, they did not buy guns to kill, but in the end they killed with it.

[demonicvampiregirl]

Yeah, but an average Joe that robs a local store and has a gun only wants to intimidate with it, his intention is not to kill with it, and this average Joe wuld not do such a thing if he culd not get a gun so easily or carry it around. There are people that will still carry guns around, but i hope for your sakes in US that this is only a handfull of people from wast majority, and if you trully belive that if guns are baned from streets ther wuld still be 1 out of 3 persons carrying it, than something is teribly wrong with US cityzens, and maybe guns shuld not be baned from streets, but people shuld. And if you ask robbers if they wuld do it if they wuld not have a gun at lest 1/3 wuld say that they wuld not, and if crimes drop down 1/3 i think that is a lot. And most of them bough a gun to make a robbery, not to kill people with, just as ppl who say that they bought guns for personal defence, but end up killing other people, they did not buy guns to kill, but in the end they killed with it.

Doesn't matter if his intention at first is not to kill the minute he pulls that trigger is the minute his intent to kill is there. You have to have a reason to pull that trigger and within a moments notice you can have one.

 

I personally hope they are not banned in the US because that will not solve a single problem. Teaching people the violence they can cause with a weapon or their actions, sitting down with your kids and teaching them things is the problem. No one wants to teach their kids anything anymore and when something bad happens they blame the government, a show, a video game. Where was they at when their child was watching TV seeing the shows and thinking they could do the same? Where was the parents at when they was having issues in their personal lives?

 

Parents need to teach their kids these things and if they feel they are a threat they need to take some form of action to prevent things from happening. I know it can be hard to get the will to do that but you have to do what is best for you, the people around you and most importantly the person in question.

 

I have at least 5 in this house alone and all belong to my father and not a single person in this house would grab one, run to any place and shoot anyone for any reason. If someone broke into our house of course we'd defend ourselves. If you ban weapons or make them harder for honest, decent, law abiding citizens to get who's to say people wont take up guns illegally and start robbing houses or anything else because they know people don't have the ability to defend themselves?

 

I was taught since I was young not to harm another unless I had to. I can run my mouth and say stupid harmful things if angered or very irritated but I will never pick up a gun, knife or try to harm anyone with the intent to kill them.

 

Your own hands are weapons should they be banned and cut off too? Or should people be taught not to do these things and told what is right and wrong?

[Mommy_Kitty]

Doesn't matter if his intention at first is not to kill the minute he pulls that trigger is the minute his intent to kill is there. You have to have a reason to pull that trigger and within a moments notice you can have one.

 

I have at least 5 in this house alone and all belong to my father and not a single person in this house would grab one, run to any place and shoot anyone for any reason. If someone broke into our house of course we'd defend ourselves. If you ban weapons or make them harder for honest, decent, law abiding citizens to get who's to say people wont take up guns illegally and start robbing houses or anything else because they know people don't have the ability to defend themselves?

If someone attacks your house, and you grab a gun and kill him, what wuld that make you? You wuld be marked as a killer, a bad guy wich you say you want to protect yourself from, even if killed in selfdefence, you wuld kill a human being.

And if your point that crimes wuld go up if there were less legaly obtained guns out there wuld be true, than in other countryes that have gun bans there shuld be more crimes, robberies, murders and so on, but the numbers are far less in comparrison to US. And don tell me that other countryes dont have social, or other problems, but the fact is that less guns on the street is less crimes.

And if guns are harder to get, and people will get illegal ones only to start robbing houses couse it is made easyer for them than something is trully wrong with US people. And dont you think that if legal guns are harder to get and have to be taged and known where thay are at any given time that wuld make illegal guns harder to get too.

[demonicvampiregirl]

If someone attacks your house, and you grab a gun and kill him, what wuld that make you? You wuld be marked as a killer, a bad guy wich you say you want to protect yourself from, even if killed in selfdefence, you wuld kill a human being.

And if your point that crimes wuld go up if there were less legaly obtained guns out there wuld be true, than in other countryes that have gun bans there shuld be more crimes, robberies, murders and so on, but the numbers are far less in comparrison to US. And don tell me that other countryes dont have social, or other problems, but the fact is that less guns on the street is less crimes.

And if guns are harder to get, and people will get illegal ones only to start robbing houses couse it is made easyer for them than something is trully wrong with US people. And dont you think that if legal guns are harder to get and have to be taged and known where thay are at any given time that wuld make illegal guns harder to get too.

I wouldn't be a bad guy or evil because I defended myself from rape, death, robbery, or worse. I will not tolerate someone breaking into my house period. I will not let my father or mother get harmed because of another if I can prevent it. I wont stand by and let them get harmed. I would not be a killer just because I defended myself. Yes I would have ended someones life but what justifies them breaking into my house for any reason? What gives them any right to step onto my property and walk in like they own it?

 

Look at the population of these places compared to the US. You can't use just plain numbers to judge that. As harsh as it sounds you can't just go by pure numbers.

 

There is nothing wrong with US people as you keep saying. There is a issue with the ones who do these crimes being uneducated and getting the help they need. It's not because we can get them. It's because they think they can, they find some small reason to do it and then they go and do it. It's not the entire US populations fault for one mad man with a weapon.

 

No it wouldn't help if they was tagged. A friend of my fathers bought Chinese guns that wasn't even taken out of the case. They still had the oil on them from the factory. Being able to tell where they are and what they are up to (which is virtually impossible) will not stop these crimes.

 

These people have the intent and drive to do these crimes. They will do it when they see fit with any method they can obtain whether it be a gun, knife, bomb, car, their own hands or even gasoline. People who are bent on harming another or doing something illegal are going to do whatever they can to accomplish that.

 

That isn't the weapons fault for them doing it. It is the persons fault alone. The weapon is just the object they chose to use. You can't blame the object at all. It's inanimate. It doesn't move on it's own at all period. You have to do something to make it move.

Edited December 18, 2012 by demonicvampiregirl

[Mommy_Kitty]

Look at the population of these places compared to the US. You can't use just plain numbers to judge that. As harsh as it sounds you can't just go by pure numbers.

If you compare population densiti on Japan and US, you will see that in Japan there is 800+ people liveing in square mile and in US only 87 people ower square mile and still they have less than 10 gun kills a year, and dont think that getting an illegal gun is any harder than it is in US by your standards. In US there are 300+ million people liveing and you have 12k gun kills a year, and in Japan there are 100+ million people liveing and they have less than 10 gun kills a year, the population is about 1/3 of what it is in US, but gun kills are less than 0,1% of gun kills in US.

 

In every modern, decent country in the world it helps to stop more gun kills if guns are harder to get, and are baned from streets, and you are still telling me that that wuld not be the case in US, why not?, why is US so diferent than any othe country that has tighter gun laws, so the tighter laws wuld not help protect lives?

 

Edited December 18, 2012 by Mommy_Kitty

[demonicvampiregirl]

If you compare population densiti on Japan and US, you will see that in Japan there is 800+ people liveing in square mile and in US only 87 people ower square mile and still they have less than 10 gun kills a year, and dont think that getting an illegal gun is any harder than it is in US by your standards. In US there are 300+ million people liveing and you have 12k gun kills a year, and in Japan there are 100+ million people liveing and they have less than 10 gun kills a year, the population is about 1/3 of waht it is in US, but gun kills are less than 0,1% of gun kills in US.

I'm going by total population. Besides that we are not every other country. We are the USA. We have different views and different culture than the rest of the world. We are only human just like everyone else. Prone to mistakes, imperfect, and driven by human nature.

 

People will still get killed one way or another whether it's guns or not. We cannot control everyones moves but we can start teaching people more about the weapons they choose to use and hopefully that will help with shootings and everything else.

 

If we limit the ability to get guns it will not stop the ones who want to use them. How many websites out there sell them? How many people own gun shops? How many people will go around selling them out of the back of their trucks?

 

We cannot control everything neither can the government. They can't make it virtually impossible to get a weapon when there is the black market and other ways to obtain them.

 

People will own a gun if they wish to legally or illegally. It's up to the user to decide what to do with it and that's where the issue is. It's the persons fault for whatever happens when they use it. They are held responsible not the weapon.

 

In every modern, decent country in the world it helps to stop more gun kills if guns are harder to get, and are baned from streets, and you are still telling me that that wuld not be the case in US, why not?, why is US so diferent than any othe country that has tighter gun laws, so the tighter laws wuld not help protect lives?

 

"In every modern, decent country"? Where do you think that the US is some third world country?

 

We are not perfect but neither is the rest of the world and no one will ever be. There will still be murders, rapes, robberies, inequality, racism. Not a single person on this earth is perfect.

 

The US is not every other place on this planet.

Edited December 18, 2012 by demonicvampiregirl

[Kestra15]

"In every modern, decent country"? Where do you think that the US is some third world country?

Your standards of health-care, gun control laws, you continued insistence of always being right and that everyone else should follow *your* standards, blind patriotism. Just a few examples.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Kestra15

[demonicvampiregirl]

Your standards of health-care, gun control laws, you continued insistence of always being right and that everyone else should follow *your* standards, blind patriotism. Just a few examples.

Not everyone is happy with the laws we got. The health care system is crap, the gun control laws to me are fine, we aren't always right, I surely don't want everyone to follow what comes from here and I'm not the most patriotic person.

 

Don't assume that is how everyone is or feels.