Be a Supporter!

Gun Control Does Not Work (proof)

  • 60,329 Views
  • 1,682 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
HighlyIllogical
HighlyIllogical
  • Member since: Dec. 9, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 16:39:03 Reply

When you're brought before a judge in the state of VA and the judge declares that you have "issues," oh, say, such as being a danger to yourself and society, you're not supposed to be allowed to own a gun. It's a silly loophole that he slipped through........

WolvenBear
WolvenBear
  • Member since: Jun. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 16:42:34 Reply

At 4/25/07 04:39 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: When you're brought before a judge in the state of VA and the judge declares that you have "issues," oh, say, such as being a danger to yourself and society, you're not supposed to be allowed to own a gun. It's a silly loophole that he slipped through........

The argument can also be made that sending a "dangerous" person to outpatient therapy is silly. "OK, now we acknowledge that you're batshit nuts, but we trust you to attend all your appointments." I bet that judge is just shocked that a mentally ill person didn't act in accordance with his wishes.


Joe Biden is not change. He's more of the same.

MortifiedPenguins
MortifiedPenguins
  • Member since: Apr. 21, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 16:54:59 Reply

At 4/25/07 04:39 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: When you're brought before a judge in the state of VA and the judge declares that you have "issues," oh, say, such as being a danger to yourself and society, you're not supposed to be allowed to own a gun. It's a silly loophole that he slipped through........

The argument could also be brought up that what is a man, a danger to himself and others, allowed to go into an extremly social enviroment with little interaction with any sort of guidance.


Between the idea And the reality
Between the motion And the act, Falls the Shadow
An argument in Logic

BBS Signature
HighlyIllogical
HighlyIllogical
  • Member since: Dec. 9, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 18:13:15 Reply

I don't doubt the premise that we're all somewhat dangerous. But people like Cho Seung Hui are particularly dangerous. Therefore, why are we letting them buy guns? Why give someone who is homicidal a way to act out his nature?

Narusegawa
Narusegawa
  • Member since: Dec. 11, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Movie Buff
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 18:31:08 Reply

At 4/25/07 06:13 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: I don't doubt the premise that we're all somewhat dangerous. But people like Cho Seung Hui are particularly dangerous. Therefore, why are we letting them buy guns? Why give someone who is homicidal a way to act out his nature?

Because we can't stop it. If someone can't buy a gun legally they'll simply buy one illegally or use a different type of weapon.


~¥%¥%+oint##so soft ¤%% ++-%¥-~-^->

BBS Signature
MortifiedPenguins
MortifiedPenguins
  • Member since: Apr. 21, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 20:29:38 Reply

At 4/25/07 06:13 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: I don't doubt the premise that we're all somewhat dangerous. But people like Cho Seung Hui are particularly dangerous. Therefore, why are we letting them buy guns? Why give someone who is homicidal a way to act out his nature?

Ask the State that.

Each State his it's own powers on how to enact it's own gun policies and whatnot.

And regardless, if the person is homicidial, there's really no way of stopping his agression.

If he didn't have a gun, he could have just as easily made a bomb.

Agression will come out regardless.


Between the idea And the reality
Between the motion And the act, Falls the Shadow
An argument in Logic

BBS Signature
HighlyIllogical
HighlyIllogical
  • Member since: Dec. 9, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 22:41:15 Reply

Ah, but bombs are not sold legally, are they?
The question should not be what could he have used if guns were illegal...That is a moot point, why does it matter? The issue is not black and white. Saying that Cho Seung Hui didn't have a gun, then he could have made a bomb is simply an appeal to fear...

SolInvictus
SolInvictus
  • Member since: Oct. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 22:45:40 Reply

At 4/25/07 10:41 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Ah, but bombs are not sold legally, are they?
The question should not be what could he have used if guns were illegal...That is a moot point, why does it matter? The issue is not black and white. Saying that Cho Seung Hui didn't have a gun, then he could have made a bomb is simply an appeal to fear...

or maybe it's pointing to the fact that this person needs help and banning guns won't solve that problem?


VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM
Heathenry; it's not for you
"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature
HighlyIllogical
HighlyIllogical
  • Member since: Dec. 9, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 22:46:39 Reply

It would certainly have prevented him from killing 32 people. Banning guns is only one step.

SolInvictus
SolInvictus
  • Member since: Oct. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 22:51:26 Reply

At 4/25/07 10:46 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: It would certainly have prevented him from killing 32 people.

that is unfotunatley just an assumption.


VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM
Heathenry; it's not for you
"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature
Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-26 00:36:18 Reply

At 4/25/07 10:51 PM, SolInvictus wrote:
At 4/25/07 10:46 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: It would certainly have prevented him from killing 32 people.
that is unfotunatley just an assumption.

Indeed... as is the assumption that allowing students to carry guns on campus would have stopped or even lessened Cho's spree. it takes more than just a weapon, but training above and beyond that required to recieve a C&C permit to deal with a situation like that. Not only that, if the police had responded in a timely manner (a FAR more compelling issue, if you ask me), if another student was armed, would it not have made the situation worse? How could an officer, well trained or not, make the distinction in a split second of the "safe" armed gunman? Not only that, with people not trained for such a situation, and all thepanic that undoubtedly went around, who's to say that an armed classmate wouldn't have injured or killed an innocent bystander trying to be the "hero"?

There are FAR too many variables in the situation to say that "If X had been the case (be it banned guns, stricter controls, or lack of them), then the whole thing would have been avoided". There are only 3 issues in this which actually deserve looking at: The response by police, the availability of weapons to the mentally imbalanced, and the inability of faculty and students who saw the warning signs to be able to effect a change in the situation.

As far as gun control not working, there are no conclusive data. Period. Cellar has legitimate points and so does Elfer. Cellar, however, seems to think the only form of gun control is an outright ban, which is a flawed assumption (obviously). Though, one can look at, say, bombs... illegal in all instances... banned. How many bombings do you see in this country? Not very damn many... and it's a more efficient way of killing a large number of people in a single place, too. Is there a black market for explosives? Sure, but it's limited due to law enforcement's strict adherance to the idea that noone should have them.

Then again maybe if we make guns mandatory, the stupid folk would weed themselves out.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

SyntheticTacos
SyntheticTacos
  • Member since: Dec. 31, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-26 00:38:21 Reply

At 4/25/07 10:51 PM, SolInvictus wrote:
At 4/25/07 10:46 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: It would certainly have prevented him from killing 32 people.
that is unfotunatley just an assumption.

Agreed. Banning guns doesn't make them disappear. Do you really think a CRIMINAL is going to not buy a gun because it's ILLEGAL?

WolvenBear
WolvenBear
  • Member since: Jun. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-26 04:13:23 Reply

At 4/25/07 06:13 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: I don't doubt the premise that we're all somewhat dangerous. But people like Cho Seung Hui are particularly dangerous. Therefore, why are we letting them buy guns? Why give someone who is homicidal a way to act out his nature?

BUT! If a judge really feels you're dangerous...why would he order you to go to voluntary outpatient therapy? Better to commit you and all.

At 4/25/07 10:41 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Ah, but bombs are not sold legally, are they?
The question should not be what could he have used if guns were illegal...That is a moot point, why does it matter? The issue is not black and white. Saying that Cho Seung Hui didn't have a gun, then he could have made a bomb is simply an appeal to fear...

No, but as we saw at Oklahoma City, bombs are made out of legal stuff (manure)...

At 4/25/07 10:46 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: It would certainly have prevented him from killing 32 people. Banning guns is only one step.

Prove it. As I showed in an earlier post, banning guns doesn't prevent gun deaths.

At 4/26/07 12:36 AM, Ravariel wrote: Indeed... as is the assumption that allowing students to carry guns on campus would have stopped or even lessened Cho's spree. it takes more than just a weapon, but training above and beyond that required to recieve a C&C permit to deal with a situation like that. Not only that, if the police had responded in a timely manner (a FAR more compelling issue, if you ask me), if another student was armed, would it not have made the situation worse? How could an officer, well trained or not, make the distinction in a split second of the "safe" armed gunman? Not only that, with people not trained for such a situation, and all thepanic that undoubtedly went around, who's to say that an armed classmate wouldn't have injured or killed an innocent bystander trying to be the "hero"?

However, your assumption isn't supported by evidence. There's no cases of a shooter opening fire, then everyone killing each other in a cross fire. And there's no evidence of a bunch of armed people being killed by a shooter.
The only evidence that exists is of a shooter being taken down by an armed bystander.


There are FAR too many variables in the situation to say that "If X had been the case (be it banned guns, stricter controls, or lack of them), then the whole thing would have been avoided". There are only 3 issues in this which actually deserve looking at: The response by police, the availability of weapons to the mentally imbalanced, and the inability of faculty and students who saw the warning signs to be able to effect a change in the situation.

I'll address each of these.
1. The police almost always are at a scene AFTER he crime has been committed. There are exceptions, but they are rare.
2. If a judge deems you a "threat", you should be locked up. If they determine you can...meet a group once a month, you're not terribly threatening.
3. I fit many of the "warning signs" observed by classmates.Steven King, Wes Craven and Dean Koontz fit all of them (minus the threatening to kill their classmates).


As far as gun control not working, there are no conclusive data. Period. Cellar has legitimate points and so does Elfer. Cellar, however, seems to think the only form of gun control is an outright ban, which is a flawed assumption (obviously). Though, one can look at, say, bombs... illegal in all instances... banned. How many bombings do you see in this country? Not very damn many... and it's a more efficient way of killing a large number of people in a single place, too. Is there a black market for explosives? Sure, but it's limited due to law enforcement's strict adherance to the idea that noone should have them.

And?
There have been a number of attempts to use bombs that have been caught.


Then again maybe if we make guns mandatory, the stupid folk would weed themselves out.

Cause that's what's happened in Israel and Switserland. Yawn.


Joe Biden is not change. He's more of the same.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-26 09:35:50 Reply

At 4/25/07 10:41 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Ah, but bombs are not sold legally, are they?
The question should not be what could he have used if guns were illegal...That is a moot point, why does it matter? The issue is not black and white. Saying that Cho Seung Hui didn't have a gun, then he could have made a bomb is simply an appeal to fear...

no, but you CAN buy all the components to MAKE a bomb legally. let's see...
small piece of steel water pipe
2 end caps
timer
battery to facilitate the spark

KABOOM! of course there is always the danger of killing yourself in the process of making and carrying it, but hey, you know you're gonna die anyway, what's the difference?


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-26 13:19:00 Reply

At 4/26/07 04:13 AM, WolvenBear wrote:
No, but as we saw at Oklahoma City, bombs are made out of legal stuff (manure)...

You can also make illegal firearms out of legal materials. See: spud guns, mortars, etc.

However, your assumption isn't supported by evidence. There's no cases of a shooter opening fire, then everyone killing each other in a cross fire. And there's no evidence of a bunch of armed people being killed by a shooter.

Only because the situation is so rare that we have no data for it. My ONLY point was there is NO garauntee that armed classmates would have made the situation ANY safer or less deadly. Cho was already going to die, so the "threat" or armed classmates obviously wasn't going to be a deterrant.

1. The police almost always are at a scene AFTER he crime has been committed. There are exceptions, but they are rare.

There was a lag of almost an hour between the shooting of the two kids in the dorm and the classroom shootings. The police were in a damn meeting discussing the possibility of the gunman doing other shootings when they got the call about the larger massacre going on. After the first shooting they did not close the campus, they didn't issue warnings, they did nothing. They failed their duty on a massive scale.

2. If a judge deems you a "threat", you should be locked up. If they determine you can...meet a group once a month, you're not terribly threatening.

And yet he wasn't. He had a brief stay in a mental facility, and yet was able to procure weapons legally. This, like alcoholism for organ transplants, should remove you from the "right" to buy a gun. WOuld that have actually stopped cho? Maybe not, but it is still a good idea to not allow the mentally imbalanced and dangerous to get ahold of firearms.

3. I fit many of the "warning signs" observed by classmates.Steven King, Wes Craven and Dean Koontz fit all of them (minus the threatening to kill their classmates).

I'm not talking about the "intelligent, quiet, brooding type" warning signs. Several of his teachers felt he was an imminent threat to himself and/or others, and TOLD authorities. Those authorities basically said "We can't do anything till he actually kills 33 people".

There have been a number of attempts to use bombs that have been caught.

How many?

Cause that's what's happened in Israel and Switserland. Yawn.

y helo thar sarcasm.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

HighlyIllogical
HighlyIllogical
  • Member since: Dec. 9, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-26 15:42:54 Reply

At 4/26/07 09:35 AM, Korriken wrote:
no, but you CAN buy all the components to MAKE a bomb legally. let's see...
small piece of steel water pipe
2 end caps
timer
battery to facilitate the spark

But it requires skill to make a bomb. A gun can be obtained by any crazy individual with little or no restriction.

MortifiedPenguins
MortifiedPenguins
  • Member since: Apr. 21, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-26 16:51:55 Reply

At 4/25/07 10:41 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Ah, but bombs are not sold legally, are they?

But they can be made from everyday items one might get and can be made by anyone, as seen in Columbine.

I mean, get a link to the Anarachists Cookbook and there is plent of directions, I've made a couple before with glass bottles and gunpowder


Between the idea And the reality
Between the motion And the act, Falls the Shadow
An argument in Logic

BBS Signature
HighlyIllogical
HighlyIllogical
  • Member since: Dec. 9, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-26 17:34:13 Reply

I'm going to state a simple fact and then I'm done with this topic as it is at the moment.

More guns does not mean less crime.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-26 19:02:02 Reply

At 4/26/07 05:34 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:
More guns does not mean less crime.

less guns do not mean less crime.

people commit crimes regardless of weapon choice.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

PlatinumWarrior
PlatinumWarrior
  • Member since: Dec. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-26 19:36:45 Reply

I believe that if guns are harder to obtain in some states, then there will be more illegal gun dealers there (because it is good business). Thus, if I was looking to murder someone with an untracable handgun, I would go where the illegal guns are (in the aforementioned 'strict' states)

Note: I'm not planning this, its a hypothetical insight.


Hail 7chan.

BBS Signature
WolvenBear
WolvenBear
  • Member since: Jun. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-26 20:32:54 Reply

At 4/26/07 01:19 PM, Ravariel wrote: You can also make illegal firearms out of legal materials. See: spud guns, mortars, etc.

Banning guns won't get rid of guns?

Oh, GOd. I need to sit down...

Only because the situation is so rare that we have no data for it. My ONLY point was there is NO garauntee that armed classmates would have made the situation ANY safer or less deadly. Cho was already going to die, so the "threat" or armed classmates obviously wasn't going to be a deterrant.

We have a lot of data for it. I have provided, in this forum, at least 4 examples. If you'd like more, that's fine.

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/1 9/165815.shtml (The old story is at the end.)
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/04/17/
mass_murderers_v_armed_citizens/

Tons of cases of armed citizens stopping crimes:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/Xc InfoBase.asp?CatID=43
http://www.ohioccw.org/index.php?option=com_c ontent&task=view&id=3719&Itemid=83
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Information/Xc IBPrintItem.asp?ID=2923
http://www.armed-citizens.com/ac/armedcitizen 1998.pdf
http://www.kressworks.com/Politics/Gun_Contro l/dgu/Armed_Citizen_1999.txt
And not a gun, but still evidence to my case:
http://lonestartimes.com/2006/07/22/armed-cit izen-stops-stabbing-spree/

There's NO SHORTAGE of evidence.

There was a lag of almost an hour between the shooting of the two kids in the dorm and the classroom shootings. The police were in a damn meeting discussing the possibility of the gunman doing other shootings when they got the call about the larger massacre going on. After the first shooting they did not close the campus, they didn't issue warnings, they did nothing. They failed their duty on a massive scale.

Either way, they got there and the doors had been barricaded. Normally, the police don't get there til it's over, and too late to help. They generally figure out what happened after the fact.

And yet he wasn't. He had a brief stay in a mental facility, and yet was able to procure weapons legally. This, like alcoholism for organ transplants, should remove you from the "right" to buy a gun. WOuld that have actually stopped cho? Maybe not, but it is still a good idea to not allow the mentally imbalanced and dangerous to get ahold of firearms.

Agreed.

There have been a number of attempts to use bombs that have been caught.
How many?

Are we only counting schools or are we including police here?

At 4/26/07 05:34 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: I'm going to state a simple fact and then I'm done with this topic as it is at the moment.

More guns does not mean less crime.

http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars /moreguns.htm

K, Bud.


Joe Biden is not change. He's more of the same.

Elfer
Elfer
  • Member since: Jan. 21, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 38
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-26 22:16:34 Reply

At 4/26/07 01:19 PM, Ravariel wrote: Only because the situation is so rare that we have no data for it. My ONLY point was there is NO garauntee that armed classmates would have made the situation ANY safer or less deadly. Cho was already going to die, so the "threat" or armed classmates obviously wasn't going to be a deterrant.

It wouldn't be a deterrent, but if there were say, three people in the area with handguns who knew how to use them, I seriously doubt he would have killed 32 people.

At 4/26/07 03:42 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: But it requires skill to make a bomb. A gun can be obtained by any crazy individual with little or no restriction.

You would be very surprised by how easy it is to make an explosive device with things you can get from a hardware store. It would be much cheaper and probably easier than getting a handgun.

I guess it would be harder if you had to make a remote detonation system, but that's not really necessary.

SolInvictus
SolInvictus
  • Member since: Oct. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-26 23:46:16 Reply

At 4/26/07 12:36 AM, Ravariel wrote: Indeed... as is the assumption that allowing students to carry guns on campus would have stopped or even lessened Cho's spree.

i never made any assertions that more guns would have solved the problem.


VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM
Heathenry; it's not for you
"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature
Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-27 01:25:01 Reply

At 4/26/07 08:32 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Banning guns won't get rid of guns?

Oh, GOd. I need to sit down...

i no rite?

We have a lot of data for it. I have provided, in this forum, at least 4 examples. If you'd like more, that's fine.

And your examples are fine... but there would have been no deterrant there for Cho. He had already decided that he was going to die either self-inflicted or otherwise. If someone was armed, maybe maybe it would have stopped him before he hit 32. Or maybe not.

Either way, they got there and the doors had been barricaded. Normally, the police don't get there til it's over, and too late to help. They generally figure out what happened after the fact.

If after the first shooting they had closed the campus, there wouldn't have been the opportunity for Cho to continue his spree, and his toll would have been much lower (to a far higher degree of certainty than armed classmates). The police failed.

Are we only counting schools or are we including police here?

All of them... Every instance of a bomb used in a crime, both thwarted and otherwise.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

positively-negative
positively-negative
  • Member since: Mar. 23, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-27 06:45:04 Reply

Gun control works depending on the culture. I mean in New Zealand we have the highest rate of gun ownership in the OECD but we have little gun crime compared with the USA. It is the thing that the wrong type of guns are so easily accessable in many countries through legal and illegal purposes.

I have known how to use a rifle since I was a child and I would consider myself a careful person around firearms. I have never seen a gun in the wrong hands, but it does happen everywhere, it is just the types and of guns out there in the USA due to the wild west gun slinging cowboy mantra that exists there and is too late to change.

And remember many cases of gun crime are performed with the victim's own gun. Keeping a weapon beside you for personal defense is a bad idea, especially if the criminal gets to it before you.

And cellardoor6, you work for a weapons company. The type of people that build stuff purely for profiting off humans killing other humans. The fact that there is a market for human destruction is a sad thing.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-27 09:01:30 Reply

At 4/27/07 06:45 AM, positively-negative wrote:
And remember many cases of gun crime are performed with the victim's own gun. Keeping a weapon beside you for personal defense is a bad idea, especially if the criminal gets to it before you.

show me 1 case of where the criminal busts in, snatches the victims gun, then wastes him with it.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

TurtleJuice
TurtleJuice
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-27 09:26:28 Reply

Banning guns wouldn't do anything , most of the people who can harm the public with guns are criminals who most likely purchased the gun illigally .


Somebody make me a cunting signature.

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-27 12:25:35 Reply

At 4/27/07 09:01 AM, Korriken wrote:
At 4/27/07 06:45 AM, positively-negative wrote:
And remember many cases of gun crime are performed with the victim's own gun. Keeping a weapon beside you for personal defense is a bad idea, especially if the criminal gets to it before you.
show me 1 case of where the criminal busts in, snatches the victims gun, then wastes him with it.

I can't find a story about it on the intarweb... probably because it happened back in the early 90s in a little hick town in Northern Michigan. But a fellow by the name of Raymond Thacker escaped (read walked out of) Camp Pellston, a minimum security prison near where I lived. He then found his way into town, broke into a classmates house, ambushed her father and uncle, tied them up on the floor and shot them both in the back of the head with his own hunting rifle. His 16 year old daughter found them after school.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

HighlyIllogical
HighlyIllogical
  • Member since: Dec. 9, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-27 16:25:08 Reply

"For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting there are 22
criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings."-Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, et al. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home." The Journal of Trauma. 1998;45:263-267.

That tells me that guns are a problem...

And the fact that our "buddy" Cho could get a gun through a legal loophole - because Virginia did an "instant check" rather than a REAL manual check through electronic and paper records – just reenforces the gun control argument.

SolInvictus
SolInvictus
  • Member since: Oct. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-27 17:50:47 Reply

At 4/26/07 03:42 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: But it requires skill to make a bomb. A gun can be obtained by any crazy individual with little or no restriction.

it actually requires very little skill.


VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM
Heathenry; it's not for you
"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature