Hi, I was checking a few of yahtzees vids and saw this in the side bar, just had to sign up.
Silvertounge said:
You miss the point. The point isn't that crimes are commited with guns that were procured illegally. It's the ease at getting those guns illegally.
If every household has a gun, a criminal can get a gun with a moments notice. If the only persons with guns in town is that hunter living in the suburbs and the cops illegal firearms won't exist in such numbers. This seems very hard for many Americans to understand, it seems a possibility many don't even consider. Gun laws might not do anything to stop crime in America because everyone (including criminals) already have enough guns.
This would be a fine point if we didnt already have upwards of 300 million firearms in the hands of 60-80 million gun owners.
At this point there are only 2 options
Confiscation, which wont work on many levels, not only does it violate the 2nd, but the 4th amendment as well
Attrition, or banning new guns and waiting for the old ones to break, but this wont work because guns have an extremely long life, I have a rifle dated 1947 (No, it is not an AK) and it still works wonderfully.
So, we either violate the right to privacy and property of the nation, and possibly spark a civil war, or we do something which wont do any good for 100 years
Silvertounge said:
If those gun laws had been enforced for 50-100 years then there wouldn't be that many guns, not even among criminals. Sure, they're prepared to break the law to get illegal guns, but if there aren't any illegal guns then it doesn't matter how much they're willing to break gun laws.
Not true, on several levels.
For starters, there are no laws against owning or buying firearms, no matter how strictly current and past laws were enforced out situation today would be similar.
second, we have very long land borders, one of them with a less developed nation, we cannot stop the flow of people or drugs into the US, what makes you think we can stop the guns?
And yes, they already flow in, illegal full autos are the main thing that comes in.
Silvertounge said:
And while guns are just tools, they're tools that make it very easy to kill people, and usually change how people react to different situations.
To a certain extent, you are correct, however this does nothing to blame to tool, in a proper world the user is held accountable for their actions.
As to changing how people react, possible, however do not assume it turns them into bloodthirsty killers. When Concealed carry laws were first initiated the licensed were watched very closely by certain police departments. who eventually stopped.
Studies of concealed carry licensees show that they are extremely law abiding, most dont even get parking tickets.
Silvertounge said:
Do you think this: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=5538780
Would have happened if it weren't for guns? And don't give me any shit about him being right in shooting those people.
Chances are he would not have approached them if he had not been armed.
If he had approached them unarmed then he probably would have been killed, or at least badly beaten.
Question: Is it bad to confront criminals in the act of a crime?
Chances are you have been snowed by the media blitz surrounding this case, the fellow did not kill them in cold blood for theft as some may wish you to believe, he confronted criminals in the act, and one behaved in a way that would make a reasonable person fear for their life (charged him) So he fired.
So, this makes your statement correct, individuals will act differently if they have firearms, they are more likely to assert their rights as individuals because they have an equalizer.
Silvertounge said:
And that goes for many situations like it as well. The reason that happened isn't because of restrictive gun laws. It's not because of an illegal firearm. It's because a complete moron is legally given a weapon, and isn't charged with shooting people. That's a stupid law. Gun laws aren't, if such existed that psycho wouldn't have a gun. (With gun laws I mean sane such. France, Sweden, the UK and Norway are good examples.)
The grand jury felt he had committed no crime, who are you to dispute this?
What measure do you use to call the fellow a moron
What other rights should we take from people you feel are morons
Yes, in europe you must cower appropriately before the criminals, a far better situation some would think
I would disagree
Silvertounge said:
Do you think the school massacres would have happened if harsher gun laws were in place?
Yes, with explosives.
If you really study columbine, you find that what happened was plan B
Plan A was to detonate big bombs, their homemade timers failed, but they could have been detonated by hand just as easily
Silvertounge said:
The avaviability of guns, both legal and illegal is because of those laws and because of how they are enforced. Both is lacking in America, and it really shows. Check the list below and think for a second if that might have something to with avaviability of firearms. (I'll admit that I think there would be just as many people that wanted to go on an insane rampage like that and kill all their school mates and teachers in America even if they didn't have guns. But if they couldn't do it, the issue wouldn't be as big.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings
Ask me this, why didnt my father commit a school shooting?
He took a gun to school once, back in the 50s or so.
It was a christmas present, after showing it off to his friends he put it in his locker and went about his day.
Before 1968 a person could purchase a rifle through the mail, no age limits or ID required.
Yet even as access to firearms has decreased, school shootings have increased....Why?
Could it be that our public school systems are a living hell, at least for some, that eventually kids cannot take much more and decide to get revenge for all the taunts and beatings they received.
Could it be that the cause of school shootings has absolutely nothing to do with the implement, and everything to do with the school.
Regardless, school shootings and other mass shootings are the exception, not the rule, and their use in a gun control argument is a significant event fallacy.