Be a Supporter!

Gun Control Does Not Work (proof)

  • 44,058 Views
  • 1,772 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
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 00:18:06 Reply

At 4/24/07 11:59 PM, Boltrig wrote: Look, at least Im putting forward an alternative. Gun ownership doesnt cause such a stirring of emotion in the UK, so its an alternative to bringing back firearms.
By your logic, anythings better than being completely unarmed.

Sorry chief but...No, my logic is that having a gun is a better option than not having a gun. The people before me wrote just why long range tazers are useless.

Still no luck here. Few years back a farmer with a legit shotgun licence shot and killed a teen that was breaking into his house with intent to rob him.

The guy did time.

We need to do away with that. There's something insane about putting someone in jail for shooting an intruder.


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) 2007-04-25 00:32:57 Reply

At 4/24/07 11:59 PM, Boltrig wrote:
At 4/24/07 11:41 PM, WolvenBear wrote:
At 4/24/07 10:32 PM, Boltrig wrote: Homeowners should be allowed to own a ranged tazer in case of such an event. Should a perp enter your house with intent to steal or cause harm to you or your family, you fire at them, incapacitating them, and then get help from either a non - jammed or still connected neighbour,
Awesome! One shot! Better not miss...cause the perp sure as hell didn't bring only one bullet.

Who cares how well it works...its an alternative!
Look, at least Im putting forward an alternative. Gun ownership doesnt cause such a stirring of emotion in the UK, so its an alternative to bringing back firearms.

lack of backbone often does that to a nation. put the squeeze on smuggling, get rid of the drug dealers, and rehab your drug addicts and see what happens. crime will probably plummet when gangs no longer have a source of income. it's easier said than done, but what we need is tougher methods of dealing with the actual smugglers. without smugglers things like Heroin, Cocaine, and opiates will pretty much disappear and crime will plummet.

Ever wonder why many of the asian nations execute drug traffickers? it's because they see the threat that drugs are, and they deal with it in the best way possible. get rid of the traffickers.


By your logic, anythings better than being completely unarmed.

true enough, but personally I prefer equal footing, if not an advantage in a bad situation. I don't need a "moral high horse" I need self defense. gimme my gun, and let some fool barge through my front door at night and see what happens.


At 4/24/07 11:42 PM, Memorize wrote:
I think i'd rather just shoot and kill them on the off chance they try to sue me in court.
Still no luck here. Few years back a farmer with a legit shotgun licence shot and killed a teen that was breaking into his house with intent to rob him.

The guy did time.

that's european justice for you, support the criminal and punish the innocent. something about that just doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense....


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

D2Kvirus
D2Kvirus
  • Member since: Jan. 31, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 38
Filmmaker
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 10:35:37 Reply

At 4/22/07 03:47 PM, Demosthenez wrote:
The only point is that the UK's gun crime is rising and the ban has not affected that. When did anyone ever argue the US has less gun violence than the UK?

And I repeat, the rising rate of gun crime in the UK still has deaths in double figures, while in the US it's in quintuple figures despite it dropping. You can't bring that up and hope to make something of it.

If the rate of gun-related deaths goes up 10% in the UK, it means the deaths of seven or eight people.
If the rate of gun-related deaths goes up 10% in the US, it means the deaths of 3000 people.

That's what I'm focused on - if guns were more strictly monitored, surely at least one digit could be slashed from that number?

The US hasnt been hit by terrorism in a few years. Other countries circumstances are immaterial when crafting domestic policy, which is exactly what I was addressing. So in effect all our legislation and efforts have made the United States safer if we want to limit our information like you did earlier with the "no big violence (but there is gang violence) in the UK since the ban" defense.

But there is no big violence, barring gang-related crime, in the UK. People don't get shot and killed in hold-ups, carjackings or whatever, yet they are more likely to in the US. Maybe it's the American nature to shot first and ask questions later, while in the UK we're probably too polite.

The fact that alot of gun crime in the UK can be attributed to a single London Borough, Hackney, is indicitive of this - although recent cases have been around Streatham and Peckham. Streatham and Peckham are next to each other in SE London (so there may well be a connection), while Hackney is in NE London - and also one of the poorest and most crime-ridden boroughs.


Propaganda is to a Democracy what violence is to a Dictatorship
Never underestimate the significance of "significant."
NG Politics Discussion 101

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) 2007-04-25 14:48:56 Reply

At 4/25/07 10:35 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: If the rate of gun-related deaths goes up 10% in the UK, it means the deaths of seven or eight people.
If the rate of gun-related deaths goes up 10% in the US, it means the deaths of 3000 people.

Yea, let's ignore the rest of the murders in London and only focus on the guns...


That's what I'm focused on - if guns were more strictly monitored, surely at least one digit could be slashed from that number?

Guns were strictly monitored on VA Tech. Didn't help them any.

But there is no big violence, barring gang-related crime, in the UK. People don't get shot and killed in hold-ups, carjackings or whatever, yet they are more likely to in the US. Maybe it's the American nature to shot first and ask questions later, while in the UK we're probably too polite.

The UK outdoes the US in all violent crime except murders. Rape robbery, and assault are all higher in the UK than here.


The fact that alot of gun crime in the UK can be attributed to a single London Borough, Hackney, is indicitive of this - although recent cases have been around Streatham and Peckham. Streatham and Peckham are next to each other in SE London (so there may well be a connection), while Hackney is in NE London - and also one of the poorest and most crime-ridden boroughs.

And this yet again ignores the real problem. Crime. Referring to it as gun crime is exceptionally foolish.


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 15:08:03 Reply

At 4/25/07 10:35 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:
At 4/22/07 03:47 PM, Demosthenez wrote:
But there is no big violence, barring gang-related crime, in the UK. People don't get shot and killed in hold-ups, carjackings or whatever, yet they are more likely to in the US. Maybe it's the American nature to shot first and ask questions later, while in the UK we're probably too polite.

Maybe it's just a different clash of cuture and customs.

The UK and America are very different but can be traced back towards mutual political though, economies and government as whole. Then when we split, we adopted, adapted and evolved in a harsh world where there were enemies on our homefront and our worlds.

The UK set out on an Imperial campaign. There fight was far from home. I mean, when was the last time that there was a real war or attack on the UK and England.

You would get the occasional IRA bombing and whatnot, but England has(and unless my history is faulty) enemy free. At least on the home front.

While I could bring up stereotypes about the English and thier constant need for order and governance, that wouldn't be as funny.

Were two different cultures in two different worlds. Of course were going to be different.


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

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 15:59:07 Reply

At 4/24/07 05:17 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:
Likewize there aren't hundreds of examples of people with baseball bats stopping mass shootings.
As if there are numerous examples of civillians with guns stopping mass shootings? There are more examples of those people killing family, friends, themselves or starting mass shootings.

There is a problem with arguing this point: neither side can prove whether or not a course of action has stopped something. In reality you cannot be sure that the incidents of accidental shootings is higher than the incidents of mass murder prevention...

There is no way to prove it either way...


And it's interesting to note that everyone of the liberal elite that harps on how we need to ban guns, have guns for their own protection or have armed guards.
That's a specious claim. I don't have guns or armed guards...

The key word here is "elite"...


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 16:08:07 Reply

At 4/24/07 05:05 PM, AzureFenrir wrote: Of course, this is all speculative until actual evidence can be presented. In any case, I don't support banning of guns (well, maybe heavy artillery and military-grade guns like M-16s and sniper rifles). I simply support gun permits and a log of all firearm transactions to keep legal guns out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals and to ease tracking of crimes committed with said legal guns.

Azure,

First of all let me say I understand you are not talking about banning guns in general. However, I do have a problem with you thoughts on M-16s and sniper rifles.

Did you realize that the USMC sniper rifle is in fact a modified civilian hunting rifle? One that you can buy at places like Wal-Mart and Bass Pro? Now I know you're probably thinking about the mods I mentioned. Well these involve things such as trigger pull and barrel rifling twist rates that increase accuracy, and not lethality. Sniper rifles and hunting rifles are often the same thing so if you ban sniper rifles you're going to also de facto ban hunting rifles as well...

Even large calibers such as the .50 do have civilian hunting applications: big game. However, the cost involved in permits, travel and the cost of the gun itself (starting at about $2,000) is prohibitive...

As for Assault Rifles, read my post about the (ir)rationality of the assault ban. And yes you CAN hunt legally with an AK-47 and it is practical and will NOT make the carcass unusable...


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

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 16:24:06 Reply

At 4/25/07 02:48 PM, WolvenBear wrote:
Guns were strictly monitored on VA Tech. Didn't help them any.

Sure....

Then why could a MENTALLY ILL MAN, who was determined to be incompetent, get two guns?

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 16:34:59 Reply

At 4/25/07 04:24 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Sure....

Then why could a MENTALLY ILL MAN, who was determined to be incompetent, get two guns?

Because the rules of Virginia Tech don't apply to Virginia at large. Did he get the guns on campus? No you say? Right on, another strike for you!

And considering I've yet to hear about him being labeled "incompetent", whatever legal effect on his gun ownership that would have...

He was deemed to be a threat to himself or others, but the judge sentenced him to outpatient therapy (which he stopped), that (for whatever reason) did not get put on his record as a flag. Thus, when the background check was performed on him, no history of mental illness came up.
Not that any of that makes your point any more valid. But I thought I'd set you straight.


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

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.