More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Really isn't fair to compare gun control to slavery. I seriously doubt guns will be banned in the US in our lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it not fair? If we think that some commonly accepted current practice is bad, we should encourage people to stop. Whether we think it's likely to work or not, the only way things get better is by someone saying "this can be better" and getting other people to go along.

[LBK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Virginia Tech massacre was horrible, and my thoughts and best wishes goes to all of those affected. But, and it's sad to say it this way: It is the price to pay for a society where everyone "needs" a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only one person involved had a gun.

Thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and if he had no way of getting to a gun it would have been tough for him to kill 31 people the way he did.

Guns are bad, mkay? It's not tough to understand. Sure, people kill people, but its a hell of a lot tougher to kill someone with a rudimentary weapon such as a knife. At least then you can run.

[/ QUOTE ]
This guy was planning this killing spree for well over a month and I doubt any amount of gun control would have stopped him. If he couldn't get a gun off the black market what about a bomb?

[/ QUOTE ]


Look, I'm not exactly in favor of bombs either, but in most cases you need to have some sense of how a bomb works and its a lot harder to pull off a successfull bomb operation than it is to walk down a hallway with a gun pulling the trigger.

Bottom line is that guns have done way more harm than they have good. Please argue that one.

[rubbrband]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it not fair?

[/ QUOTE ]
Human rights violations aren't comparable to prohibition. Slavery takes every right away from a person. Gun control would be taking away a right granted to citizens by the US constitution. Your assumption that taking guns away from the people is socially progressive is the problem in your logic.

[LBK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Guns are bad, mkay? It's not tough to understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why hasn't the government gotten rid of its guns yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be in favor of EVERYONE banning guns. Trust me. i would rather the gun be in the hands of a cop or FBI agent than a street thug though. Which is more likely to cause you and I harm?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is it not fair?

[/ QUOTE ]
Human rights violations aren't comparable to prohibition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many people consider prohibition by forceful coercion to be a violation of their right to lead their lives the way they see fit. The argument for and against this point is not decided. We ought not declare certain topics off limits because some people don't want to talk about it anymore.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
The Virginia Tech massacre was horrible, and my thoughts and best wishes goes to all of those affected. But, and it's sad to say it this way: It is the price to pay for a society where everyone "needs" a gun.

What surprises me most is the "solutions" many seem to have after a massacre like this. I've scrolled through some of the gun-debates on this forum, and opinions like "If the students had guns, they could have taken out the killer" and "more guns makes a safer community" seems to be shared by many users.

I live in Norway in Europe. We have a very strict gun law. Even the police aren't allowed to carry guns. Some of you might now think "wow, that's stupid". Actually it's not. When the police don't use guns, criminals doesn't need to either. The result is that people doesn't get killed in stealing/robbing related cases. And if the criminal does have a gun? Well, then he doesn't feel the pressure of using it, cause nobody else is a treat. I think this is a good thing. Yes, so a criminal might get more easily away. But isn't that a better outcome than either the criminal and/or the victim getting killed because both were armed? Or someone getting killed by the police while stealing a handbag?

If I turn into some mental nut, I think the chanses are good I could get a gun in the US. I could buy one legally. I could get one from my family. Or, I could buy one from a friend or steal one. In Norway, I don't know how to start. Not even after 20 years of living here.

Many Americans seem to use the argument "but the criminals would get guns no matter what, so we might aswell allow it".

what a stupid thing to say. the harder it is to get a gun, the less likely it is that someone would get one.

and of course, if guns aren't allowed, a criminal wouldn't need a gun as much as if everybody else had it. you don't need that "edge" anymore. when everybody else have guns, say in the us, of course criminals must use guns. and it becomes a bad circle, and people get shot in the confrontations.

I think it's strange so many people doesn't agree that more guns means more gun-related violence.

Especially since almost all western industrial countries but the US has stricter gun laws AND less murder rates. I think it's pretty obvious. It's like what more proof do you need? Just look to whatever country you want that has a good, strict gun-control.

I can understand many peoples argument about being able do "defend themself", and therfore having guns. But the thing is, if guns are illegal, you don't have to.

Last year New York City had about 560 homicides. NYC has about 8 million people. Let's compare it to Norway. We have about 4 million people, so we can't compare directly. But if we take Norways number, which is about 20-30 a year, times to, we can compare the numbers. It's about 10 to 1. Sure I could compare it to Texas or California. Frankly, I don't think it would make much a difference.
Or, we could compare the US to another Scandinavian country or west european with strict gun laws. I believe the result is still alot lower than in the US.

The point is, the murder rates could be so much lower if guns were restricted.

I welcome other thoughts at this, and I respect people having other opinions. I know alot of people disagree with me, I just wanted to get it off my chest.

Thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

The U.K. has very strict gun laws also, yet has far more violent crime than Norway. London has a higher rate of violent crime than New York City.

I don't think you can draw a cause-and-effect relationship between strict gun laws and crime by using only Norway and the U.S. as an example. Some countries have stricter gun control laws than the U.S. yet also more violent crime (Russia, Brazil, South Africa). Gun laws in the U.K. haven't stopped the trend of increasing violent crime rate.

My guess is that cultural differences are one of the biggest reasons for the disparities in the violent crime rates between Scandinavian countries and the U.K. or U.S.A.

I would suggest you read some of the linked studies in recent threads. The correlation between gun laws and gun crime, or violent crime, is not what it intuitively would seem. More guns does not = more crime.

You also seem to think that outlawing guns would remove guns from society. That didn't work in the USA for alcohol during the Prohibition period; it isn't working now for illegal drugs; and there is no reason to presume that it would work for guns.

Thanks for reading.

[rubbrband]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is it not fair?

[/ QUOTE ]
Human rights violations aren't comparable to prohibition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many people consider prohibition by forceful coercion to be a violation of their right to lead their lives the way they see fit. The argument for and against this point is not decided. We ought not declare certain topics off limits because some people don't want to talk about it anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? Not sure what your saying here. I never said I didn't want to talk about slavery, but I just don't think it is at all useful in comparing it to gun control. You would be better off comparing it to drug laws or something that at least partially relates.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Huh? Not sure what your saying here. I never said I didn't want to talk about slavery, but I just don't think it is at all useful in comparing it to gun control. You would be better off comparing it to drug laws or something that at least partially relates.

[/ QUOTE ]

It just seems to me that your initial post was saying "this issue isn't going to get resolved so it's not worth having another discussion about it". I think that the only way anything ever changes is by having people argue about them.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is that guns have done way more harm than they have good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Show your calculations. Should be simple since you're so sure.

Guns are here. They're not going away. They can't be uninvented. Now, given that, why do you think putting all of the "bad" guns in the hands of one party is a good idea? Especially given that government agents, not civilians, have been the driving force behind the most disgusting mis-uses of guns throughout history.

[ QUOTE ]
Please argue that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

20 year old punk vs. 80 year old lady. You're the 80-year-old lady, minding her own business. Which situation is better in your book:

1) you both have clubs

2) you both have guns

[rubbrband]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Huh? Not sure what your saying here. I never said I didn't want to talk about slavery, but I just don't think it is at all useful in comparing it to gun control. You would be better off comparing it to drug laws or something that at least partially relates.

[/ QUOTE ]

It just seems to me that your initial post was saying "this issue isn't going to get resolved so it's not worth having another discussion about it". I think that the only way anything ever changes is by having people argue about them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll talk about gun control, I was just expressing the fact that it isn't going to change any time soon.

I am a very big supporter of rights and little to none should be given away to the government.

Drug laws are hurting us prostitution gambling. It's all still being traded on the black market but at what cost to society?