Guns & Morals

[Silverdust]

I have been thinking seriously about the gun control issue for some time (and have learned many new things that have helped to refine my position). However, after today's elementary school shooting in Connecticut, my stance on gun control has almost flipped completely. I am at least questioning whether or not we are responsible enough for easily obtainable firearms.

Now, this not meant to be a typical "gun control argument". I believe that the right to bear arms is fundamental to the security of the family. But, could it be that this ideology is simply theoretical in today's society? In comparison to previous generations, I believe we are declining in the quality of our morals and values. It seems that few people live by a set of principles anymore. Sure, we all claim to be responsible human beings; but, look how many divorces, lawsuits, abortions (opinion), and violent/non-violent crimes take place on a daily basis. It is evident to me that the collective population is becoming less able to be trusted with having children - let alone a tool able to take a life.

In short, guns are important to have. But, are we still responsible enough to have them? Have we, as a people, lost the common sense necessary to defend ourselves?

[orangebomb]

At 12/14/12 08:15 PM, Silverdust wrote:

In comparison to previous generations, I believe we are declining in the quality of our morals and values.

You got to remember that morals, values and ethics are always changing with the times, and every person and generation has different standards as a whole. Now the basic ones of, such as be kind to others, hard work and so on are still commonplace with the majority of the people, and has been forever. But as I said, different generations believe in different ethics, morals, etc..., and there are some who either refuse to be a part of them, or simply dismiss them as angst or tunnel-vision if you will.

It seems that few people live by a set of principles anymore. Sure, we all claim to be responsible human beings; but, look how many divorces, lawsuits, abortions (opinion), and violent/non-violent crimes take place on a daily basis.

Now what does things like divorces, lawsuits or even abortions have to do with responsibility or morals? Granted, a lot of them can end up being messy or convoluted to the point where everyone has to put in their two cents in. But just because you get a divorce, or get an abortion doesn't mean you lost your principles necessarily, although that does depend on what you believe or how your raised as a child.

It is evident to me that the collective population is becoming less able to be trusted with having children - let alone a tool able to take a life.

Well, with the population of the world in general going ever so higher, there will be more people that are going to be criminals, miscreants and the messed up in general, it's simply the law of proportion. {if that's is a mathematical law}

In short, guns are important to have. But, are we still responsible enough to have them? Have we, as a people, lost the common sense necessary to defend ourselves?

The vast majority of people know what guns are, and are responsible enough to treat them with respect. But as I mentioned before, the law of proportion comes into effect when there are more criminals and whatnot with the rising of population, among many other factors that I won't bother going into detail at this time. Knee-jerk solutions will not solve this problem, and could make it much worse than it is now.

[theburningliberal]

At 12/14/12 08:15 PM, Silverdust wrote: I have been thinking seriously about the gun control issue for some time (and have learned many new things that have helped to refine my position). However, after today's elementary school shooting in Connecticut, my stance on gun control has almost flipped completely. I am at least questioning whether or not we are responsible enough for easily obtainable firearms.

Now, this not meant to be a typical "gun control argument". I believe that the right to bear arms is fundamental to the security of the family. But, could it be that this ideology is simply theoretical in today's society? In comparison to previous generations, I believe we are declining in the quality of our morals and values. It seems that few people live by a set of principles anymore. Sure, we all claim to be responsible human beings; but, look how many divorces, lawsuits, abortions (opinion), and violent/non-violent crimes take place on a daily basis. It is evident to me that the collective population is becoming less able to be trusted with having children - let alone a tool able to take a life.

In short, guns are important to have. But, are we still responsible enough to have them? Have we, as a people, lost the common sense necessary to defend ourselves?

I think I understand the basic gist of your argument... Something along the lines of "When did a "well regulated militia" get twisted to mean a "well-armed, unregulated and uneducated populace"?"

It's a valid point. Consider the historical context of the 2nd Amendment. During the final years of British rule in the Colonies, the Crown had made some very far reaching attempts to restrict gun ownership, mainly by controlling how many guns were available and from whom the colonists could legally purchase weapons and ammunition, as well as how many guns and how much ammunition a person could have before it became illegal. The essential idea was that although guns were necessary for hunting, the Crown didn't want people to be able to accumulate enough weaponry to be able to challenge them. Well, we did anyway. And when we wrote the constitution, the people who had suffered through British control of guns and ammunition wanted to make sure that our ability to equip an armed insurrection was never challenged, which is why the 2nd Amendment was passed. That is even further supported by the fact that many people in the colonies saw the Constitution and the Union itself as simply an experiment in self-governance, as were the Articles of Confederation. While the hope was there that the Union would persevere, there was a feeling for a long time that we may need to stand up and fight for our rights again at some pint in the future, which is what the 2nd Amendment was designed to provide for.

It was never designed to provide easy access to modern weapons. It was never designed to provide tools for people to kill each other with over domestic troubles. It was never designed to allow dangerous weapons to fall into the hands of gang members. It was never designed for people to be able to walk into a public place and indiscriminately open fire, whether that be a shopping mall, movie theater, or institutions of public education in the US.

The problem is systemic, and it has been going on for centuries, and STILL we have done nothing about it because those of us who want to prevent these things from happening are too cowardly to stand up to the gun lobby and gun owners.

[Feoric]

At 12/14/12 08:42 PM, Austerity wrote: Most people are responsible, but there will always be incidences where something awful happens, especially in a country with over 310 million people.

That's only half of the picture. There's ~300 million guns in private hands. The more people you have with guns, the more shootings there will be.

[TheMason]

At 12/14/12 11:07 PM, theburningliberal wrote: It was never designed to provide easy access to modern weapons. It was never designed to provide tools for people to kill each other with over domestic troubles. It was never designed to allow dangerous weapons to fall into the hands of gang members. It was never designed for people to be able to walk into a public place and indiscriminately open fire, whether that be a shopping mall, movie theater, or institutions of public education in the US.

1) Modern weapons are no where near as lethal as what they had back then just in terms of ballistics. Add to this modern advances in medicine and GSW victims have a 94% chance of survival. Furthermore, modern military weapons have actually intentionally devovled in terms of lethality since the Hague Convention of the 19th Century established that military small arms shall not make death inevitiable.
2) Actual relationship murders are very rare. In order to inflate the number gun-control advocates include pimps killing prostitutes and any kind of acquaintainship into one category to make it seem that this far more common than it really is.
3) Gang members will get ahold of weapons whether they are legal or not. There is an international black market for firearms that is fueled by governments such as Venezuala and the US. Those weapons can and do flow into this country and into the hands of gangs.
4) Mass killing sprees are exceptionally rare and the cause is not firearm availability. Without a gun this guy would've most likely used a homemade explosive that could've taken out 3-6 classrooms of children or a gas which would do about the same.

The problem is systemic, and it has been going on for centuries, and STILL we have done nothing about it because those of us who want to prevent these things from happening are too cowardly to stand up to the gun lobby and gun owners.

Don't forget the main problem you have: your arguments are based upon emotion rather than an understanding of the causal relationships of the facts.

As for what the OP asks...

I'm not sure that we have lost the ethical underpinnings of our society. But they do seem to be slipping away. We are becoming less and less independent minded. I've worked flood duty with the Guard, and I'm amazed by just how paralyzed people can be. A great number need to be told what to do in an emergency...and increasingly it's the government they want telling them. Even as the water is rising they do not know what to do without someone in uniform telling them to get the hell out.

It is very scary to me because it is not that far of a leap from there to a nanny or police state.

[TheMason]

At 12/14/12 11:19 PM, Feoric wrote: That's only half of the picture. There's ~300 million guns in private hands. The more people you have with guns, the more shootings there will be.

Too bad that's not shown to be the case. I live in an area where close to 100% of the population is armed. And yet shootings are incredibly rare. Maybe one every 5 years.

[Feoric]

At 12/14/12 11:29 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/14/12 11:19 PM, Feoric wrote: That's only half of the picture. There's ~300 million guns in private hands. The more people you have with guns, the more shootings there will be.

Too bad that's not shown to be the case. I live in an area where close to 100% of the population is armed. And yet shootings are incredibly rare. Maybe one every 5 years.

Your town is representative of the general gun related crime of the entire United States?

[TheMason]

At 12/14/12 11:32 PM, Feoric wrote: Your town is representative of the general gun related crime of the entire United States?

Actually not at all.

However, when you compare the crime rates and run the trend lines between states (where things like ELF scores, economics and educational attainment are controlled) you do see a drop in crime rates that correlates to increased gun ownership. So there does seem to be a deterent effect to gun ownership which reduces crime.

Even when crime rates go down across the board in all 50 states, you see a steeper decline in states that have laws such as concealed carry and/or the castle doctrine.

[theburningliberal]

At 12/14/12 11:28 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/14/12 11:07 PM, theburningliberal wrote: It was never designed to provide easy access to modern weapons. It was never designed to provide tools for people to kill each other with over domestic troubles. It was never designed to allow dangerous weapons to fall into the hands of gang members. It was never designed for people to be able to walk into a public place and indiscriminately open fire, whether that be a shopping mall, movie theater, or institutions of public education in the US.

1) Modern weapons are no where near as lethal as what they had back then just in terms of ballistics.

Modern weapons are far more accurate and take less time to re-load than the weapons available when the Constitution was written (ever tried to reload a musket? Shoots 1 shot at a time and takes much longer to reload than a modern handgun, where all you have to do is release the trigger and pull again). And considering today you not only have larger caliber weapons, you also have hollow-point rounds and numerous other types of ammunition which are meant solely to cause increased destruction at the point of impact, I do believe your argument is based somewhere in la-la land.

Add to this modern advances in medicine and GSW victims have a 94% chance of survival.

So... just because we are more likely to survive a GSW, that means its okay for us to go around shooting people now? And to be accurate, for every person who dies from a GSW, 2 more are wounded, which makes the survival rate roughly 67%, not 94.

Furthermore, modern military weapons have actually intentionally devovled in terms of lethality since the Hague Convention of the 19th Century established that military small arms shall not make death inevitiable.

Let's be honest about the Hague Convention, shall we? Aside from the fact that the second convention in 1907 is almost universally considered a failure and third never happened due to the start of World War I, the first actually did very little to "devolve the lethality" of weapons themselves. Out of the Hague convention came prohibitions against chemical and biological weapons (which wasn't very effective, as we saw in WWI about a decade or so later), prohibitions against certain kinds of bullets (like hollow-point bullets, which may not be used by military but are certainly used elsewhere) and other unrelated things, like not firing weapons from balloons and extending the rules of the 1864 Geneva convention to maritime warfare). But, if you actually look at what was accomplished during the Hague convention, the idea that "military weapons shall not make death inevitable" is not found.

2) Actual relationship murders are very rare. In order to inflate the number gun-control advocates include pimps killing prostitutes and any kind of acquaintainship into one category to make it seem that this far more common than it really is.

Really? Pimps marry their hookers? http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-stati stics/

3) Gang members will get ahold of weapons whether they are legal or not.

So we should just give up trying to prevent them from getting a hold of them? I'm sorry, but this doesn't seem to make much sense. "Shoot for the moon, even if you miss you will land amongst the stars." Even if we don't completely eliminate the presence of guns in gang violence, reducing the number of weapons legally available to gang members is going to make a positive effect, whether you like it or not.

There is an international black market for firearms that is fueled by governments such as Venezuala and the US. Those weapons can and do flow into this country and into the hands of gangs.

Actually, most of the weapons found in the international black market are found to have no serial number ever inscribed on the weapon, which means they were not made in the United States at all. Secondly, as with anything on the black market, those weapons are extremely expensive, often prohibitively so for gangs based in areas that are stricken with high levels of poverty.

4) Mass killing sprees are exceptionally rare and the cause is not firearm availability. Without a gun this guy would've most likely used a homemade explosive that could've taken out 3-6 classrooms of children or a gas which would do about the same.

Did you actually look at the lists of school related assaults that I posted? Or watched the news over the last 15 years? These assaults are not rare, they happen at an astounding rate. Maybe the cause itself is not always firearm availability, but the availability of weapons certainly doesn't hurt if you are inclined to go on a shooting rampage. As for explosives and gases, they often require technical knowledge which is either strictly controlled or hard to understand, or they require materials that are strictly controlled and much more difficult to obtain than a firearm.

The problem is systemic, and it has been going on for centuries, and STILL we have done nothing about it because those of us who want to prevent these things from happening are too cowardly to stand up to the gun lobby and gun owners.

Don't forget the main problem you have: your arguments are based upon emotion rather than an understanding of the causal relationships of the facts.

Don't forget the main problem your arguments have: They are based in some kind of alternate universe where things are true just because you want them to be. The facts don't lie. Maybe I use an emotional appeal to get my point across, but when 100,000 Americans are killed or wounded annually and millions more have their lives affected by gun violence in some fashion, I'd say I'm damn justified in using an emotional appeal as a call to action.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

We already have a gun control thread take it there.

[Feoric]

At 12/15/12 03:22 AM, Austerity wrote: The liberals are pretty much going to have their way from now on and there's nothing anyone can do except act as a buffer and delay the inevitable.

Really? The liberals are going to have their way? I'd love to hear why you think this.

[likethefonz]

fyi, the average caliber of a musket (up to the invention of the minie ball and self contained ammo) was around .60 cal, yes modern military firearms have more ammo, able to reload faster and engage targets at a greater range and much more effectively, I would say as a whole, humans don't DESERVE firearms, we are a pitifully simple species who is vastly over confident, as far as actual gun control, they say you don't need an assualt rifle to hunt, ever hunt boar? I'm not going into the brush with bolt action rifle, and on bolt action rifles and gun control, you don't NEED 3 rounds to take a deer down, especially considering after that first shot if you missed and the deer is still standing there, you probably don't wanna eat it. But bottom line, it's not about what you need, I am, for the most part, totally sane, never convicted of any crime, and have military training in firearm handling and safety, And yet some people think they have the right to tell me what firearms I can or cannot have.
In my eyes banning certain types or cars (which as far as "crimes" goes have killed many many more people than firearms) would be a more effective means of crime suppression, which lets be real here, is the only reason gun control is even brought up. If your blind you can't get a drivers' license, I say that in order to purchase a firearm (for the sake of argument lets say a short barrel carbine with detachable mags) you should be required to take some kind of mental exam, been awhile since I went to the DMV but I think you need to take an eye exam. The trick isn't to restrict weapons, the trick is to restrict who is able to buy them, because I'm fairly certain that guy on the corner slinging meth, hes still gonna be able to get a gun. Look at Switzerland, and to a lesser degree Isreal, Citizens in Switzerland are given an assault rifle, by the government, and they have a RIDICULOUSLY low firearm related crime rate, as I'm sure its been brought up, ONE TEACHER, properly trained in the use of his/hers firearm, would have made this recent tradegy, worst case scenario? not as many kids would have died. And on the topic of children and firearms, when your kid turns 16, do you just toss them in the car and say "Good luck!" or do you sit down and show them the controls, the basic rules that go along with driving on a street. If you own a firearm, and you, or some one in your household doesn't know how to use it, fix it. And in closing i leave you with this: As a sane, responsible adult, who, THE FUCK, do you think you are telling me what I do and don't need.
Those that seek to impose their will on others, are the true criminals. And those that would forfeit basic liberties (I think everyone can agree being able to protect oneself is a pretty basic liberty) for momentary security, deserve neither liberty OR security. A man, or probably more importantly, a women, MUST have the ability to protect oneself, last I checked the avg. police response time is 20 minutes, if you think that you can keep that active shooter (police term for the guy that is running around murdering your friends and family) occupied, I'm assuming it would be by verbal means, or invite him for tea and crumpets, and not get shot, your a fucking jedi and I want to be your padawan, and finally, getting rid of assault weapons wouldn't stop shootings, if anything it'd make them worse, I'm thinking the University of Texas, shooting, back in the sixties, personally I would much rather take on a guy, 20-30m away with an assault weapon, with my bare hands, than try to get outta the line of fire of a sniper in a good position, Charles Whitman had no rapid fire capability, minus a M1 garand, yet he killed 11 people, restrict assault weapons, and these nutjobs are just gonna start shooting from a fortified position. RESTRICT WHO IS ABLE TO PURCHASE, OWN WEAPONS. DO NOT RESTRICT WEAPONS. watch here soon cops are gonna start carrying just billy clubs instead of firearms, can you imagine if only criminals had access to firearms? I hear the U.K, is kinda like that, and that might work for them, last I heard Wales and the U.K. get along alright, and I know you crazy limey bastards remember the IRA right? This bit of info might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the IRA didn't get all their armaments from dead soldiers or pawn shops. Restricting the kinds of weapons one is able to own, is to me at least, probably the worst thing we, as a so-called "civilized" and "empathetic" species. So being empathetic can you imagine what a father is thinking, feeling, experiencing when "criminals" bust into his house and rape his wife and daughter than make him watch as they put a bullet each of their heads, because dead men tell no tales, and hes thinking, "If only I haden't given my weapons in" can any of you imagine that? I can't, and I hope that loaded .40 under my pillow and the magazine fed semi auto shotgun (Saiga 12k baby) next to my bed enable me to never experience. Like I said, as a mentally and emotionally stable adult, as long as my actions aren't affecting others, how dare the powers that be think they can tell me what to do. On the real closing points of my argument: If law abiding citizens can't own firearms, of any type/caliber/action/cyclic rate/magazine capacity, or any other classification, all that means is the REAL criminals( ya know rapist/murders/ NOT those who think they should be able to own a 20mm belt fed chaingun for no other reason than they want to) the criminals are gonna be getting guns for cheap, you really think H&K, or Colt or any other firearms company is just gonna stop making weapons? Unfortunately this little blue marble we live on still has this cancer known as humankind, when we don't have the need for weapons, or for killing each other, over the stupidest of things (My god is better than yours!) And war is a very profitable business, Look at Operation Fast and Furious, you think the powers that be are actually worried about YOUR safety? no they are worried about theirs', look at every dictatorship in recorded history, they take the weapons from the private sector so that the citizens have no choice to shut up and get in line, same thing with information and communication (SOPA? ACTA 2.0?) I am a patriot, and my country is called Earth, one day I hope we can live frolicking through flower pastures eating lollipops while little drawn hearts fly out our arses, until then those of us who see how useful a tool can be, must not let ANY tool be controlled by people who really don't care about you.

[Thecrazyman]

At 12/14/12 08:42 PM, Austerity wrote: Most people are responsible, but there will always be incidences where something awful happens, especially in a country with over 310 million people.

Witch in turn also brings about to state that the greatest of goods as, the greatest of evils, the greatest of orders and the greatest of discords can be committed by human beings themselves.

Through it will eventually come to the point where human beings won't be the only thing committing such acts, other beings similar to humans will also do the same, whatever for more or for less matters not.

[morefngdbs]

At 12/15/12 07:00 AM, likethefonz wrote: RESTRICT WHO IS ABLE TO PURCHASE, OWN WEAPONS. DO NOT RESTRICT WEAPONS.

;;;In my local paper, it said he may have used his Mothers guns.
It said she had registered 4 guns & he was found with 3 , 1 left in a car & 2 on him when they found his corpse.

So if my local paper's story is correct .... legal or illegal guns isn't really the subject here.
He stole/took his mothers guns killed her then killed 6 more adults at a school & 20 children.

I personally am wondering .... IF any of those other 6 adults had a gun, could they have stopped him or at least mitigated the damage he caused by wounding him or even killing him earlier in the attack etc.

[theburningliberal]

At 12/15/12 07:00 AM, likethefonz wrote: wall of text

Hello fonz, I notice you are new to the forums. So welcome. Good grammar and punctuation is appreciated, as it makes your post easier to read.

As to your post, I will try and hit on as many points as I can find:

Yes, the average caliber of muskets was larger than many modern weapons. But its an irrelevant fact. As you yourself stated, modern weapons are more accurate, have a higher rate of fire and hold more ammunition than weapons used at the time of the Colonial revolution. Arguably, because of the increased accuracy, we have been able to reduce caliber size because we are no longer just pointing and shooting and hoping we hit something. Because of other modern advancements in gun technology, we simply don't need the larger caliber bullets.

I am, for the most part, totally sane, never convicted of any crime, and have military training in firearm handling and safety, And yet some people think they have the right to tell me what firearms I can or cannot have.

Depending on which statistics you believe, you are not necessarily representative of the American public. As a result, your individual education and training is largely irrelevant. But, even if it was relevant, what happens if someone breaks into your house while you aren't there and manages to obtain access to your weapons? You can yell gun safe this and trigger locks that, but all of these things are able to be overridden one way or another if the thief is dedicated enough. All of a sudden you have weapons purchased and meant for use by a military trained individual in the hands of someone who may or may not have the same level of education. What happens next is anyone's guess.

As far as having the right to tell you what firearms you can and cannot have, are you familiar with the concept of ethics? If there is enough consensus on an issue, it will override the protestations of a minority that they should be allowed to do/have something and, if that ethical constraint is conceivably something that the state would have an interest in protecting, then constitutionally, yes, "some people" can tell you what kinds of firearms you are allowed to own because it is in the best interest of all of us if certain weapons are not available legally.

In my eyes banning certain types or cars (which as far as "crimes" goes have killed many many more people than firearms) would be a more effective means of crime suppression

I could spend hours dissecting this statement, but I will just give the overview to save space... First, in pure terms of people killed in vehicle-related incidents and people killed in gun-related incidents, gun related incidents vastly outweighs. The actual numbers of people killed in all auto-related incidents in roughly equivalent to the number of people killed by gunfire in the US each year, and when you strip that down to include only auto-related incidents that were the result of actus/mens rea, the number is significantly smaller. And when you consider that guns have been around for hundreds of years longer than automobiles, gun fatalities significantly outweighs. Not to mention that if you get shot, the hospital is required by law to notify the police because statistically speaking, you probably didn't shoot yourself.

advocating mental health evaluations for prospective gun owners

I would agree to this.

The trick isn't to restrict weapons, the trick is to restrict who is able to buy them

It's a mix of the two, actually. Since many weapons used in assaults like the one at Columbine or Newtown are not actually owned by the shooter, restricting the availability of weapons in general would reduce the likelihood that a mentally disturbed individual will be able to get their hands on them. Not to mention that many gang-related acts of gun violence are done using stolen weapons. So yes, reducing the availability of weapons (especially certain types) would be helpful. And again, restricting who can buy weapons is also a plus. People who have violent criminal records, mental health problems and other situations that are ethically found to create a higher chance of violent crime should be restricted from buying weapons.

because I'm fairly certain that guy on the corner slinging meth, hes still gonna be able to get a gun.

Chances are that guy on the corner slinging meth is doing so in order to try and support a family. If you take his legal right to own a gun away, it will be much harder for him to get one. If he does find a black market route to get a gun, chances are it will either be a stolen weapon or will be shipped into the US from abroad. In either case, the market price of that weapon is likely to be much higher than he can afford.

Israel and Switzerland

Myth busted

One teacher argument

Do you understand why guns are not allowed in American schools? Can you imagine the effect it would have, knowing your teacher had a gun in her desk drawer? In suburban schools it would cause an outrage from parents - where is the need, do you plan on shooting my kid, etc... In urban schools, it is a safety issue (the same reason many inner-city school districts have metal detectors and bookbag searches at every entrance).

As a sane, responsible adult, who, THE FUCK, do you think you are telling me what I do and don't need.

Your right to need something ends when that need has a good chance of inflicting harm on the rights of others. Considering a weapon in the home is statistically more likely to be used against a family member than it is an intruder, and the potential for theft/loss, it would be better to encourage tougher restrictions on gun ownership.

Those that seek to impose their will on others, are the true criminals

It's not just a few people, in this case it is the will of society at large. Incidents like Aurora and Newtown and Columbine and Portland and Kileen and San Diego and Camden and Binghampton and Jacksonville and Kent State and VA Tech are becoming all too often in our society and need to be stopped.

And those that would forfeit basic liberties (I think everyone can agree being able to protect oneself is a pretty basic liberty) for momentary security, deserve neither liberty OR security.

When did ' a well regulated militia' get twisted to mean 'a well-armed unregulated populace' ?

A man, or probably more importantly, a women, MUST have the ability to protect oneself, last I checked the avg. police response time is 20 minutes,

Actually the worst recently is 11 minutes 12 sec... In Newtown, I want to say that the cops were on-scene roughly 90 seconds after the first call came in.

watch here soon cops are gonna start carrying just billy clubs instead of firearms

Unlikely.

Making an implicit comparison between the US and UK

Can't make that type of comparison, it's like comparing apples and oranges. The UK is largely a homogenous society, whereas the US is a much more heterogeneous one. Remember the melting pot label? There's a reason for that.

as long as my actions aren't affecting others, how dare the powers that be think they can tell me what to do.

Here's the problem - your actions themselves may not directly affect others, but they certainly pave the way for the actions of others to have a much more damning effect.

The rest of your post I didn't see much of an argument in, it was just a lot of emotionally-fueled drivel.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

We have a gun control thread go there.

[Timmy]

I'm going to close this and encourage everyone to post in the original Gun Control discussion found here.