Is it Time for the US Government to Ban Gun Ownership?

[Quaoar]

Since the person was Asian, he probably could not have legally purchased a gun. So, a non-American carrying an illegal weapon?

Wow, now there's a blatantly racist comment. There are plenty of Asian people in this country who are US citizens and attend college. You have no evidence that most Asians who attend college in the US are expatriates.

 

[ukmicky]

The more law abiding citizens carrying firearms WOULD make it safer, absolutely. I don't see why you disagree? How would it not be safer from maniacs going on killing sprees?

So what your saying is, in the the future if it were to happen again but instead of killing 32 the maniac only kills 15 people, OK I'll be kind he only kills 2 people because someone in the next room happens to have a gun and shots him, your saying that is better than banning the gun full stop and preventing anybody getting killed.

 

[ukmicky]

Wow, now there's a blatantly racist comment. There are plenty of Asian people in this country who are US citizens and attend college. You have no evidence that most Asians who attend college in the US are expatriates.

I don't think she quite meant it like that.

 

[scorpa]

Random speculation, perhaps if the manic wasnt born this event wouldn't have happened. Perhaps if his gun jammed he wouldn't have killed as many.

The fact of the matter is that he did, and the pro-gun lobbiest spin only works on the ones who want to believe that guns make a happier safer place for all people... Let's just forget todays events shall we...

I think what people are trying to say, is gun ban or not, the guy would have been able to get ahold of a gun had he wanted to. Why should the rest of society be helpless against that? People have the right to defend themselves, and saying "please sir I really think you should think this through, you could really hurt someone you know!" probably isn't going to help them.

That being said I would once again like to say I do not condone guns in schools, I am just making the argument for arguements sake.

It could have also saved lives if someone took in a shotgun or kalasnikov or a crossbow . I know what about a grenade, even though their quite indescriminate it may have caused less deaths How about a nice selection of throwing knives, no forget the kinives there to dangerous.

scorpa I know your not saying that's guns should be allowed in universities but seriously the gun lobby statement is dumb,guns don't belong in a place of learning under any circumstances.

PS This forum needs spellcheck

Cross bows are to bulky to carry around with you all day

I thought I had clearly stated that I did not think guns belonged in universities, they have no place there. I only made that point for arguements sake...you cannot deny that if someone in that school for example a security officer had had a gun it could have had the potential to save many lives. And yes it is dumb to think that people should bring guns to school, I agree with that.

On a side note...I thought a lot of American universities/high schools had metal detectors in them nowadays to help prevent this type of thing? I remember hearing that somewhere but of course I could be wrong.

 

[scorpa]

I don't think she quite meant it like that.

Agreed

Wow this thread moves fast.

 

[drankin]

So what your saying is, in the the future if it were to happen again but instead of killing 32 the maniac only kills 15 people, OK I'll be kind he only kills 2 people because someone in the next room happens to have a gun and shots him, your saying that is better than banning the gun full stop and preventing anybody getting killed.

Guns cannot be banned in the US. It is a basic right. To even discuss it as if it were a possibility is pointless. So, that being understood, to restrict the ability to have guns in places like a university, when they are everywhere else, simply puts the people there at risk. Which has been the case today.

 

[Kurdt]

I think what people are trying to say, is gun ban or not, the guy would have been able to get ahold of a gun had he wanted to. Why should the rest of society be helpless against that? People have the right to defend themselves, and saying "please sir I really think you should think this through, you could really hurt someone you know!" probably isn't going to help them.

That being said I would once again like to say I do not condone guns in schools, I am just making the argument for arguements sake.

Well that's not necessarily true. I think people are blinded to the fact that there are a lot of guns around in The US at the minute and it is relatively easy to steal one from somebody you know or obtain them illegally. I think most proponents of the ban are thinking ideally as I am to a place some time in the future when there have been amnesties and it is very much harder for a young person to get hold of a firearm. In many cases the difficulty at obtaining such an item might prevent the person from doing as they plan. Is it not a coincidence that the US has the most high school massacres in the world whereas places with stricter control have fewer? And it is not a question of allowing security guards with guns in schools in other places either.

Its like the old chinese proverb. A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step. You can continue in this vein or take the first step to correcting it and solve the problems as you go, because there will be lots in a place so rife with firearms.

 

[ukmicky]

I thought I had clearly stated that I did not think guns belonged in universities.

It could have also saved lives if someone took in a shotgun or kalasnikov or a crossbow . I know what about a grenade, even though their quite indescriminate it may have caused less deaths How about a nice selection of throwing knives, no forget the kinives there to dangerous.

Scorpa I know your not saying that guns should be allowed in universities but seriously the gun lobby statement is dumb,guns don't belong in a place of learning under any circumstances.

PS This forum needs spellcheck

You did state that and i did sort of point that out.

 

[scorpa]

You did state that and i did sort of point that out.

Just wanted to be clear

 

[russ_watters]

Did you mean "are not"? If he had a student visa, he could not legally buy a gun.

I think you may be jumping the gun on that. I was watching the news when the kids said the shooter looked asian, but I didn't take that to necessarily mean a non-citizen.

 

[ukmicky]

Side note

why ain't everyones number of posts going up, I've been on 80 for god knows how long and poor Drankin is stuck on 1.

Mind you Drankin disagrees with my views so forget about him.

 

[drankin]

Well that's not necessarily true. I think people are blinded to the fact that there are a lot of guns around in The US at the minute and it is relatively easy to steal one from somebody you know or obtain them illegally. I think most proponents of the ban are thinking ideally as I am to a place some time in the future when there have been amnesties and it is very much harder for a young person to get hold of a firearm. In many cases the difficulty at obtaining such an item might prevent the person from doing as they plan. Is it not a coincidence that the US has the most high school massacres in the world whereas places with stricter control have fewer? And it is not a question of allowing security guards with guns in schools in other places either.

Its like the old chinese proverb. A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step. You can continue in this vein or take the first step to correcting it and solve the problems as you go, because there will be lots in a place so rife with firearms.

It's a futile (some would say "evil") ambition to methodically erode our freedom to bear arms. If one really does not want to live in a country that enjoys this freedom, they should consider relocating rather than trying to change something that is so basic to what this country is all about.

 

[drankin]

Side note

why ain't everyones number of posts going up, I've been on 80 for god knows how long and poor Drankin is stuck on 1

Poor me, as if my posts don't... count!

 

[Kurdt]

It's a futile (some would say "evil") ambition to methodically erode our freedom to bear arms. If one really does not want to live in a country that enjoys this freedom, they should consider relocating rather than trying to change something that is so basic to what this country is all about.

So I'm evil because I disagree with certain aspects of US law. I just don't think the benefits outweigh the negatives. Most of Europe has strict gun laws and it operates perfectly well.

 

[drankin]

So I'm evil because I disagree with certain aspects of US law. I just don't think the benefits outweigh the negatives. Most of Europe has strict gun laws and it operates perfectly well.

But that's Europe. We aren't Europe and we don't want to be European. My point is that if people really like European ways and laws then they should consider moving over there and changing their nationality. People come over here from Europe all the time for the exact same reason.

I don't think you are evil some would argue that though :).

 

[0TheSwerve0]

So you're saying societies should be static?

 

[Kurdt]

Well what I can't understand is people complaining about massacres and then not wanting to do something simple to solve the problem. But if that's the way you want it.

 

[Type 7]

Have you noticed the Google ads at the top of the page above the poll? One says "lowest price sniper rifles." Just thought I'd point it out in the hope that it would spur further debate. Don't stop the entertainment now; I've still got popcorn left!

 

[Evo]

Wow, now there's a blatantly racist comment. There are plenty of Asian people in this country who are US citizens and attend college. You have no evidence that most Asians who attend college in the US are expatriates.

No, not racist at all, simply stating that the news said he was Asian. Many Asian's in our colleges are on student Visa's. Some are Us citizens, true. If he was on a student visa, he could not legally buy a gun. That applies to anyone on a student visa. You don't realize that I am probably the most non-racist on PF, having fought many battles to get racism stopped here.

 

[cristo]

Guns are not to make a safe situation. They are to make a safer situation. If I try to kill the intruder with a gun then yes there is a chance he will kill me first, but there is also a chance I will kill him first. If I don't have a gun, I have no chance at all. 1 in a million chance of winning is still better than 0 in a million. I won't even include deterrence since that cannot be measured (accurately).

Well, at the moment a criminal breaking into a house in an attempt to steal from the owner will know that there is a chance that the owner carries a gun. If a ban is enforced, then the criminal breaking into an average person's house knows that there is a far lesser chance that the owner carries a gun-- in fact if he's breaking into a law abiding citizens's house, then there is a very very small chance that the owner will be carrying a gun. Now, since we're talking probabilities here, in which case do you suspect that there is more likelihood for the burglar to shoot you on sight, rather than simply threaten you with the weapon?

 

[Quaoar]

No, not racist at all, simply stating that the news said he was Asian. Many Asian's in our colleges are on student Visa's. Some are Us citizens, true. If he was on a student visa, he could not legally buy a gun. That applies to anyone on a student visa. You don't realize that I am probably the most non-racist on PF, having fought many battles to get racism stopped here.

Many, not all; not even most. That's why it's a little dangerous to say he probably couldn't buy the gun.

 

[cristo]

I think cops should be able to have guns, but I'm not sure if you were implying that they should or shouldn't so I won't argue that point. I'm assuming you just mean the average person.

I don't believe that the average policeman should carry a gun, no. However, I believe that the US police force cannot turn back and be disarmed, as that would do more harm than good.

 

[Type 7]

No, not racist at all...You don't realize that I am probably the most non-racist on PF, having fought many battles to get racism stopped here.

Frankly, I think it was a cheap shot to suggest otherwise.

Now let's get this debate back on topic.

Proposed: Elmer Fudd would not have tried to kill Bugs Bunny if Bugs had a concealed weapons permit and routinely carried a Colt 45.

Discuss.

 

[ukmicky]

Frankly, I think it was a cheap shot to suggest otherwise.

Now let's get this debate back on topic.

Proposed: Elmer Fudd would not have tried to kill Bugs Bunny if Bugs had a concealed weapons permit and routinely carried a Colt 45.

Discuss.

Sorry i totally disagree with that statement.
A colt 45 is a short range weapon is it not ,whilst i believe i am correct in stating that my mate Elmer, Mr fudd to you carried a rifle which was accurate over long distance.


Please think and get your facts right next time before you post

 

[scorpa]

Frankly, I think it was a cheap shot to suggest otherwise.

Now let's get this debate back on topic.

Proposed: Elmer Fudd would not have tried to kill Bugs Bunny if Bugs had a concealed weapons permit and routinely carried a Colt 45.

Discuss.

Hmmm I think Elmer would have thought twice about it, although he was very determined. I think we need to decide whether his desire to kill Bugs will overpower his need for self-preservation.

 

[Astronuc]

Elmer Fudd carried a shotgun.

Yosemite Sam carried two pistols - ostensibly Colt 45's.

 

[scorpa]

Sorry i totally disagree with that statement.
A colt 45 is a short range weapon is it not ,whilst i believe i am correct in stating that my mate Elmer, Mr fudd to you carried a rifle which was accurate over long distance.


Please think and get your facts right next time before you post

Yes but it would be harder to get a shotgun down a rabbit hole.

 

[ShawnD]

Shawn I remember hearing about that slurpee thing on the news a few years back. Weren't some kids stealing it from the science lab or something like that?

Yes. Copper Sulfate is used in a lot of beginner science experiments because of what copper can do (batteries, corrode zinc, change to colorless when you add zinc, etc). Kids stole it from the lab so they could poison people with it edit: Oh wow this thing was 3 pages during my lunch break and now it's 8 pages.

 

[ShawnD]

Pair of 9 mms? Three people rush the loon, and one gets shot. They've got to be prepared to, "Ohmigod!" hit him, maybe break a couple bones. It's called education: the operator of a firearm has to aim at each target and pull the trigger, and tenths of seconds are required for each shot by a skilled user --- how long's it take to cover the five yards between me and him? Second? Couple shots? He hits one of three in a hurry at a moving target, he's NHL material.

This will never happen due to something called by Bystander Effect. When there are many people involved in a situation, people are less likely to try to help. They all just expect somebody else to help. People might attack after the loon has already killed a few people.

 

[ShawnD]

Well, at the moment a criminal breaking into a house in an attempt to steal from the owner will know that there is a chance that the owner carries a gun. If a ban is enforced, then the criminal breaking into an average person's house knows that there is a far lesser chance that the owner carries a gun-- in fact if he's breaking into a law abiding citizens's house, then there is a very very small chance that the owner will be carrying a gun. Now, since we're talking probabilities here, in which case do you suspect that there is more likelihood for the burglar to shoot you on sight, rather than simply threaten you with the weapon?

I see what you are getting at, and it does make sense.
On the flip side, would you rather rob a home that is absolutely 100% assured to be gun-free, or would you try to rob the home of a well-armed citizen? The citizen is on the defense and you're trying to sneak around. When the burglar and home owner are equally armed, there is an inherent advantage of being on the defensive. If you take away the home owner's gun so now only the criminal has a gun, the balance of power shifts in favor of the criminal.

As to whoever asked why the US has lots of crime despite everybody owning guns, that's only half-true. While many Americans own guns, most states do not have concealed carry laws, which means a good 99% of citizens walking around are not carrying guns at that time. If you point at some random person on the subway, you can bet your life on the fact that he does not have a gun on him, assuming you are in a state that does not allow concealed weapons. If you're in a place like Texas, it might be the other way around (Texas allows concealed weapons).