Murder in Michigan

[Shell B]

I sit on no fence. I do not believe that gun control (or regulations) would have any positive effect on the amount of gun related crime whatsoever.

They would, if it was coupled with attention to the illegal arms market.

If anything... it would cause more, as everyone in possession of a gun would then be a criminal.

Ah, but that assumes that the gun legislation I suggest would entail removing everyone's right to bear arms. That is not the case. Of course, on the flip side of that, you shouldn't own a gun if it is illegal for you to do so. I'll reiterate my earlier point that the idea of only law enforcement and criminals having guns horrifies me. I'm just saying that following laws prevents you from breaking them.

The 'Right' to own guns in the U.S. is so ingrained into society... and guns so numerous... that it is far too late to do anything about it. In my opinion.

It is far too late to do anything half assed about it. We have to keep better track of the weapons that are here. Fuck, in colonial times, the British had a better idea of where the guns were than we do now.

[Faith No More]

---

Guns, however, make killing a lot easier and make killing lots of people at once much easier.

I disagree. It is only easier in the sense that it is quick. It is, by no means, an easy way of killing lots of people in the sense that you will almost always get caught if you open fire at a group of people or go on a shooting spree. Plus, people in the crowd can run away, so not everyone dies. Gas is much more effective and less traceable. You can't ban gas, can you? Oh, bombs are pretty good at that too. They destroy a lot of evidence and kill massive amounts of people. Your average Joe can build an effective bomb. Are we going to start banning every part of explosive devices? How about cell phones? They're popular with the roadside bomb crowd. Oh wait, we're talking about white people dying. We can keep our cell phones because only brown people and those asshole soldiers die from bombs with cell phones on them. However, guns have to go.

The thing is, I have never understood this argument. Killing a lot of people is not a difficult thing. The reason it is not done that often is that most people don't want to murder people. The whole want thing is the problem. It isn't the weapon, it isn't the victim, it isn't the setting, it isn't the phases of the fucking moon. The only reason why people kill people with guns is because those people want to kill people. Now, I don't think it is fair that people who have guns to protect themselves at home from intruders should have to now physically fight off intruders (who probably have guns or some other weapons) just because people attribute insanity to guns.

Do you think that nut-job in Arizona would have killed six people if he just had a knife?

Stabbing six people in the kidney actually doesn't sound that difficult. In fact, fewer people would run if you got them in the lung as well. There would be no warning shot or screams. Don't get me wrong, I am only stating a point here. The idea of hurting people makes me ill.

The fact is killing has and always be around, the gun just simplified the whole task and can turn one person into a crowd killer. If killing is a fact of life, why make it so easy for people?

Fire simplified the task. Swords simplified the task. Bombs simplified the task. Biological weapons simplified the task.

---

Keep in mind that I am not saying ban guns outright. I just think more gun legislation could go a long way to solving the American problem of gun violence.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I sit on no fence. I do not believe that gun control (or regulations) would have any positive effect on the amount of gun related crime

You ARE taking the piss,having a laugh,in'tcha? Hard to tell sometimes, some gun owners really do seem to be that stupid.

[Violet]

Government is damage control... they cannot stop it from taking place... but they can minimize the damage it does.

The single worst move for a government that desires stability is to remove from its people that which its criminals posses in spades. It makes criminals out of 'citizens', and it breeds an environment where anarchy rules the lives of the citizenry and the government sees its people as the enemy of the state.

Whoever wins... the government probably becomes totalitarian when it stabilizes.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Just because the Republicans use an argument doesn't automatically make it wrong.

Of course it doesn't.They are just politicians after all,and even politicians seem to get it right sometimes, through no fault of their own.


Did someone just seriously use that fatuous chestnut about 'only criminals having guns'? Evidence from countries such as Australia ,the UK and Japan show very strong gun laws actually do result in far fewer gun deaths.

In my country,handguns are almost impossible to obtain legally. Guns are rarely used here in the commission of a crime,even in armed robberies. Here people do not shoot each other in the head over a poker game or a parking spot,and children do not take guns to school.

[Minimalist]

that it is far too late to do anything about it. In my opinion.

So the body count will continue to climb, Paul. We have seen the results of a nutty gun culture and refusing to even address it means that it will continue unabated. We'll have scads of guns in homes across the country and a domestic dispute will turn into a homicide because a person who was not a "criminal" up to that point will suddenly become one when when his/her spouse says the wrong fucking thing at the wrong fucking time.

I guess that is the American equivalent to "stoning the bitch" that I chide Rayaan about. Rayaan, I'm sorry. We just use higher tech stones.

[Rayaan]

I guess that is the American equivalent to "stoning the bitch" that I chide Rayaan about. Rayaan, I'm sorry. We just use higher tech stones.

Yeah, the difference being that the stones that we use are used as a weapon against sin. I doubt if the higher tech stones will be as much effective as the original one.

[Shell B]

Yeah, the difference being that the stones that we use are used as a weapon against sin.

Rayaan, you really just said that, didn't you? I think you just made those stones look worse than a nuke. "Hey, I'm going to fight this lady's invisible evil with quite visible rocks. Just throw them at her, you can't miss the evil." No offense, yaan, that is insane. That being said, I am relatively sure you have never participated in a stoning.

[Cinjin]

Truthfully, I think both sides do have some merit to their points. I don't think it's a winnable argument.


True, I think it would be dishonest to make the claim that shooting deaths would remain the same if gun ownership were banned. At the same time I think it would be fool hearty to condone the removal of yet another liberty our constitution allows us, or to believe that the decline in shooting fatalities would be anything more than fractional. There has got to be enough black market handguns in circulation by now to arm every citizen in the US three times over. Add to that - that thousands of Americans would rather claim that they lost their guns or had them stolen rather than relinquish them to the government.

A ban on the ownership of firearms could very well cause more headaches and unrest than we can imagine. The results of that ban would make criminals out of millions of regular people and only add to the already hemorrhaging black market of illegally owned weapons.

Anyone notice how well the war on drugs worked?? Oh that's right. It didn't.
There are still many people in the government that feel that the criminalization of marijuana in the 1920's was a huge mistake. We created a world wide market for would-be thieves and killers. Better regulation, tougher restrictions, tougher penalties ... this is our only viable option at this point.

[Minimalist]

I guess that is the American equivalent to "stoning the bitch" that I chide Rayaan about. Rayaan, I'm sorry. We just use higher tech stones.

Yeah, the difference being that the stones that we use are used as a weapon against sin. I doubt if the higher tech stones will be as much effective as the original one.

You're going to make me regret giving you any credit at all....aren't you?

True, I think it would be dishonest to make the claim that shooting deaths would remain the same if gun ownership were banned.

Cinj, that's the boogeyman argument. There is an enormous difference between "banning" and "registration." We register cars and there are cars all over the fucking place. They are not illegal but we have some small idea that the people operating them had demonstrated some minor ability to do so at one time....no matter how much the fucks seem to have forgotten in the meantime.

But the right-wing psychos are against regulation/registration/background checks/childproof locks/ etc., etc. The only thing they are for are armor piercing bullets, 30 round clips and full automatic.

I'm sorry man...when their response to a school shooting is to arm the students it is too fucking much!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/opinio...yt&emc=rss

Finally, the gun lobby has filed two lawsuits in federal court in Lubbock, Tex., to compel the State of Texas to allow young people between the ages of 18 and 20 years old to buy handguns and carry them concealed in public places.

The first suit challenges the longstanding federal law prohibiting licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to anyone under 21 years old. The second case contests a Texas law setting 21 as the minimum age for carrying a concealed weapon.