Discussion about gun laws.

[Fit of Rage]

So on a couple of other forums that I read, there've already been a couple of posts that I can't figure out, like:

"See, now if the students were allowed to carry guns, then there would've been fewer deaths. Blame US gun policy!"

Apparently it's minor news that VT was a legally a "firearms-free" campus. Please point me to the study where arming the general populace is a better idea. Common sense kind of dictates to me that more people with guns is a pretty sure-fire way to increase a body count (sorry Sarien, not enough people actually train to shoot one, and a lot of people are just plain retarded).

It's sad that this is already becoming a gun control/videogame/witch hunt, since the real question is "why would someone feel the need to do this?"

Not a study per se, but I believe a good number of people in Switzerland are armed/trained to use a firearm, since the country's militia is supposed to be "every adult male between 18 and 60 something". Don't quote me on that, just saying that Switzerland's crime rate is low and perhaps in that small of a country, that system works. The US is just too large for that I think.

[Scoop]

Haha we beat yall in football son

[Emaho]

I totally missed this until just now. Glad you're okey D1st!

A bad thing about this is that it will only make people more afraid and get more guns. I'm not sure if this is a true fact but I heard from a guy that there are 2,5 firearms for every American. They should start to make it harder if for people to hold of weapon. I know it's a big industry but your government have to do something because if they don't, these events is just going to keep happen.
I'm sure people get mad or that nut heads exist in other parts of the world too, where it's not so easy to get hold of firearms and where these things don't happen. Not ~30 people get executed.

16/4/2007 was a tragic day.

[Jeansi]

[Squeezer]

It should also be noted, for the Charlton Heston's of the world that this young man passed the background tests necessary to acquire firearms. This of course further proves the point that psychotic people can purchase guns in our country.

Seriously though, can anyone give me one good reason why civillians should be allowed to purchase and own guns?

edit: And don't say for protection, because if no one had guns, then there'd be no reason to protect yourself from someone weilding a gun.

[Noah]

Even tho I think America has the dumbest view on firearms in the history of mankind, I don't think your point is valid.

He could have gotten that gun in his second year at school, before he flipped out. Everyone can go from normal to pshyco if the right events and pressure are applied. This should be taken into the consideration when passing out firearms to normal people.

[Squeezer]

Even tho I think America has the dumbest view on firearms in the history of mankind, I don't think your point is valid.

He could have gotten that gun in his second year at school, before he flipped out. Everyone can go from normal to pshyco if the right events and pressure are applied. This should be taken into the consideration when passing out firearms to normal people.

He had a receipt in his backpack for the purchase of the glocks in March.

[Fit of Rage]

It should also be noted, for the Charlton Heston's of the world that this young man passed the background tests necessary to acquire firearms. This of course further proves the point that psychotic people can purchase guns in our country.

Seriously though, can anyone give me one good reason why civillians should be allowed to purchase and own guns?

edit: And don't say for protection, because if no one had guns, then there'd be no reason to protect yourself from someone weilding a gun.

Cocaine is illegal yet people still find ways of getting it. People could do the same with guns, it would just become another black market operation, and gangs could still operate.

[Jerome Scuggs]

It should also be noted, for the Charlton Heston's of the world that this young man passed the background tests necessary to acquire firearms. This of course further proves the point that psychotic people can purchase guns in our country.

Seriously though, can anyone give me one good reason why civillians should be allowed to purchase and own guns?

edit: And don't say for protection, because if no one had guns, then there'd be no reason to protect yourself from someone weilding a gun.

well fit beat me to it, but yeah, i know 3 or 4 people within my closer group of friends who own guns illegally. i'm talking M-16's, AK-47's, Uzis, Tommy Guns, even an M-60. ideally no guns = no violence, but realistically no guns = invitation for people with guns to harm you

[Galleleo]

well fit beat me to it, but yeah, i know 3 or 4 people within my closer group of friends who own guns illegally. i'm talking M-16's, AK-47's, Uzis, Tommy Guns, even an M-60. ideally no guns = no violence, but realistically no guns = invitation for people with guns to harm you

Of course there will be a black market if guns become illegal. BUT the number of people actually having guns will go way down. This kid could easily get a gun now and do this, was he desperate enough to go through the trouble of finding an illegal gun for all this? (I don't know why he did this, if it was from some strong conviction, of course he would have found a way). And about your argument, you have to take into account that in the US there are A LOT of guns out there, so for guns to reach the illegal market is rather easy. You can buy most guns in stores then flow them out to the illegal market.

Whereas for example in the Netherlands, where, as far as I know, to actually get a gun you need to go through a lot of hassle to get it legally and a specific reason for owning it (you work security, hunting, etc.). Of course we have a black market in guns here, but I don't think (I never investigated) it's THAT easy to find those illegal guns. This is, I think, because of our country never having had that many guns, so it's harder for guns to be able to reach the illegal market, in the US it's easier.

[Squeezer]

well fit beat me to it, but yeah, i know 3 or 4 people within my closer group of friends who own guns illegally. i'm talking M-16's, AK-47's, Uzis, Tommy Guns, even an M-60. ideally no guns = no violence, but realistically no guns = invitation for people with guns to harm you

Maybe so, but I'd be willing to venture that the people acquiring these guns would do so in the sense that people buy cocaine and marijuana; personal use.

If firearms were outlawed, or if the background checks were much more extensive (like psychological evalutations etc. etc.) then I'd be willing to guess that more people would be deterred from getting guns and ammo.

This way, the firearm fatalities in our country would be drastically cut down.

[Edify]

It should also be noted, for the Charlton Heston's of the world that this young man passed the background tests necessary to acquire firearms.

They were purchased in March, and the serial numbers were removed by unknown.

Why didn't they just use a megaphone to warn everyone going to class that morning by driving around and saying "Get to a safe location" ie back to your apartment/dorm room and lock your doors?

I think they started using the campus PA system to tell people to get indoors, but that was too late.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Maybe so, but I'd be willing to venture that the people acquiring these guns would do so in the sense that people buy cocaine and marijuana; personal use.

If firearms were outlawed, or if the background checks were much more extensive (like psychological evalutations etc. etc.) then I'd be willing to guess that more people would be deterred from getting guns and ammo.

This way, the firearm fatalities in our country would be drastically cut down.

More background checks and psych evals are pretty useless if you look at the proliferation of alot of other things - alcohol (you need an ID), drugs/painkillers (you need a 'background check' in that the doc needs to confirm you're in pain, or a psych eval saying it helps you). The thing that you'd have to prove 100% beyond a doubt is, "Is this guy, even if he checks out, going to be able to then illegally give these weapons away?"

If guns were outlawed outright, then guns would probably be all over the place. For the US, it's also a geographical problem - we're right on top of south america, where arms dealing is pretty big - if guns were outlawed here, then they'd flow in from mexico.

The big problem is small arms - pistols. I researched small arms while debating the weapons of mass destruction topic - one of our cases advocated banning small-arms, because they have collectively killed more people than all the WMD's used since their inception. Small-arms are incredibly easy to get, anywhere. If you did make the gun acquisition process harder, people would eventually say "fuck it" and buy an illegal gun, because it wouldn't require a psych eval.

The thing is, regulation works if you're completely in the frame. In the United States, there is so much corruption and un-enforcement that illegal drugs and guns can proliferate rapidly. I'm not going to even begin to claim I know why the US has the highest rate of gun-related deaths, but I'd say it probably has to do with the fact that we're a fucking huge country and we're democratic. Big countries like China are more heavily regulated and things are very heavily enforced, so they can lockdown on gun control (or not and cover up the actual death statistics). Most european countries are smaller and as such, easier to actively patrol and enforce.

I dunno. In Louisiana guns are as commonplace as the pickup truck and labrador retriever, and we're not exactly a hotspot for violence. People carry gunracks on the back of their trucks, and openly trade guns or use guns they're not cleared for (I personally have fired a fully automatic AK-47).

I think if someone had the willpower to murder 30 people, though, they'd get a gun. But I also believe that if guns were heavily regulated - and enforced - then perhaps alot of trivial gun-related crimes would not have happened - Lennon would probably still be alive.

Edit: oh, I just realized your drug analogy is flawed. If you think about it, most drugs smuggled into the US are not for personal use - but for dealing. Every bit of marijuana I've ever smoked came from someone else, you just don't buy wholesale from Colombia (unless you want to deal it).

[Fit of Rage]

Edit: oh, I just realized your drug analogy is flawed. If you think about it, most drugs smuggled into the US are not for personal use - but for dealing. Every bit of marijuana I've ever smoked came from someone else, you just don't buy wholesale from Colombia (unless you want to deal it).

Nobody goes to Columbia to buy guns either. It's exactly like drugs; people smuggle it in to deal it because they know, somewhere, someone's going to want a gun that they can't obtain for some reason (illegal like an AK-47, or they don't want to have to get a license, or something).

[Squeezer]

As far as my drug reference is concerned, I meant it more on the personal level. The average gun user/marijuana user generally smokes and shoots at the range. They don't usually go out and kill 33 people. The fact that this guy barely had to do more than show up at a weapons store and show ID shows a clear flaw in the system. Hell, you don't even need a background check if you purchase a weapon at a gun and weapons expo.

I suppose it's unrealistic to completely eliminate guns from our society (especially since they're written into our governing doctorine.), but I think it's quite evident that something needs to be done. As a nation, we have the highest murder rate in the world, most of which come from firearm related incidents. The fact that it's frequently spreading to schools and other public places (just look at how many school shootings have occured since Columbine) means that there is a problem.