6 people shot to death in AL. This would not happen with gun control

[Dis]

Americans are the most violent people in the world?

That's news to me.

I would have guessed the Palastinians. Or muslim terrorists.

P.S. gun lisceneses aren't required in the U.S. this was a provision of the bill of rights. No records are to be made of gun owners. something along those lines.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
It normally involves an act punishing someone, not necessarily with the death penalty

By definition, it involves capital punishment.

Funny, knife sales aren't screened - and exactly what purpose do you think a Bowie knife was designed for? Killing, that's what.

Knives generally don't cause accidental or collateral deaths, though.

Hell, punching or elbowing somebody in the windpipe is a pretty effective way to terminate somebody, but you never read "Man mistakes wife for burglar, accidentally crushes her windpipe" in the papers.

[Jac de Molay]

Funny, knife sales aren't screened - and exactly what purpose do you think a Bowie knife was designed for? Killing, that's what.

Most governing bodies can make the distinction between a knife or machete, which is a tool no less utilitarian than a wrench or a crow bar, and a hollow point bullet or automatic conversion kit for a gun. No one is denying the myriad of ways that humans can kill one another, but the gun is unique in its ability to wreak mass destruction and the specificity of it's purpose.

That's why I'm saying it's deserving of a greater scrutiny than knives, baseball bats, rat poison, or Drano. Many states do, BTW, set the blade length for knives that one can carry on them.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Taking down those two-legged dear can be a real *****. Especially the uniformed ones.

Ahh, you're so funny with your thinly-veiled kill-the-cops joke, David.

Feeling a little limp in the groin, are we?

[David Floyd]

By definition, it involves capital punishment.

That's not a definition I've ever heard. You could be right, of course.

Knives generally don't cause accidental or collateral deaths, though.

Yes, but the primary reason people want gun registration and background checks and all that isn't to protect people from accidental injury, because by definition accidental injury can't be predicted. The point is to try to protect people from intentional danger, and my point is that the purpose of large knives and rat poison is intentional danger.

[David Floyd]

Guy,

Ahh, you're so funny with your thinly-veiled kill-the-cops joke, David.

Feeling a little limp in the groin, are we?

Have a sense of humor. I don't advocate going out and killing cops and you damn well know it.

DD,

but the gun is unique in its ability to wreak mass destruction and the specificity of it's purpose.

Actually that's incorrect - chemical agents can be used to kill more people than a handgun.

[Sava]

Yes, David... I want to make guns available for one group of people.... criminals. Wouldn't it just suck to live in a "police state" were criminals couldn't get guns. Man that's terrible.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, but the primary reason people want gun registration and background checks and all that isn't to protect people from accidental injury, because by definition accidental injury can't be predicted.

It can't be predicted with perfect foresight, sure, but it can be statistically predicted that Billy Rifleman, who went through weapons training prior to purchasing a gun, is less likely to accidentally shoot a family member than Johnny Numbnuts.

The point is to try to protect people from intentional danger, and my point is that the purpose of large knives and rat poison is intentional danger.

Many locales have a limit to the blade length of knives carried on a person, and concealed knives of respectable size are concealed weapons. And nobody's ever gotten mugged with rat poison.

[David Floyd]

Yes, David... I want to make guns available for one group of people.... criminals. Wouldn't it just suck to live in a "police state" were criminals couldn't get guns. Man that's terrible.

If you think you can make it impossible for criminals to get guns simply by banning them, in a country with over 200 million firearms THAT WE KNOW ABOUT (not counting the ones already owned illegally, of course), then quite frankly I want some of what you're smoking.

I don't care about other societies or hypothetical situations - in the US, today, right now, all you will accomplish by banning guns is preventing law abiding citizens from getting them, who by definition would not be committing crimes. It would do nothing to prevent criminals from getting them, who by definition will be getting them whether or not they are legal. They're criminals, after all.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
It's curious that the most violent people in the world (Americans) are the only ones who are entitled by their nation's constitution to own guns. I can't figure out which is cause and which is effect, yet.

Neither. The cause is elsewhere.

Oh and we're hardly the most violent people in the world. Unless you cherry-pick nations, taking the ones w/high control+low crime and ignoring the ones w/high control+high crime.

(Oddly enough, our two most violent crime periods appear to be when certain substances were banned from public consumption. First alcohol, then various drugs.)

[David Floyd]

It can't be predicted with perfect foresight, sure, but it can be statistically predicted that Billy Rifleman, who went through weapons training prior to purchasing a gun, is less likely to accidentally shoot a family member than Johnny Numbnuts.

It can also be statistically proven that an elephant can hang off the side of a cliff with its tail tied to a sunflower. So what? Statistics can show anything, and by the way someone with rifle training would be able to kill more people more efficiently - he would miss less than Johnny Numbnuts, don't you think?

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd


If you think you can make it impossible for criminals to get guns simply by banning them,

Where ever you learned to read, I suggest you go there to get your money back. No where did I say I want to ban guns. Prohibition does not work. Banning guns will not work. Making them harder to get and more expensive will help decrease the number of illegal guns. Screening, and controlling the sale of legal guns, will help decrease the number of avenues in which illegal guns are traded.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Sava
Where ever you learned to read, I suggest you go there to get your money back. No where did I say I want to ban guns. Prohibition does not work. Banning guns will not work. Making them harder to get and more expensive will help decrease the number of illegal guns. Screening, and controlling the sale of legal guns, will help decrease the number of avenues in which illegal guns are traded.

Screening and controlling the sale of legal guns have been used as backdoor bans for law-abiding citizens, or (in the case of registration) used to confiscate weapons from said citizens at a later date.

Same thing with government-mandated and controlled training courses. Limit the number of classes and who can get in and voila, instant de facto ban.

So pardon any skepticism of your intentions, Sava.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
It can also be statistically proven that an elephant can hang off the side of a cliff with its tail tied to a sunflower.

It can? I'd have thought that the elephant's mass would be sufficient to uproot the sunflower. You learn something new every day, I suppose...

Statistics can show anything

In other words, "I systematically reject statistics that I don't like."

and by the way someone with rifle training would be able to kill more people more efficiently - he would miss less than Johnny Numbnuts, don't you think?

You're barking up the wrong tree on that one. I'd rather have a half-million criminals trained in firearms useage than a million untrained criminals. The criminals can kill each other with greater efficiency, without taking out oodles of bystanders in the process. Sounds like a good deal to me.

[David Floyd]

I'd rather have a half-million criminals trained in firearms useage than a million untrained criminals. The criminals can kill each other with greater efficiency, without taking out oodles of bystanders in the process. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Really? So shopowners and just poor random bastards in the wrong place at the wrong time are criminals now?

As to statistics, I grant you that statistics show trained riflemen are less dangerous - I was mainly being facetious - but preventing accidents is not really the point of gun control legislation.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Sinapus


Screening and controlling the sale of legal guns have been used as backdoor bans for law-abiding citizens, or (in the case of registration) used to confiscate weapons from said citizens at a later date.

Same thing with government-mandated and controlled training courses. Limit the number of classes and who can get in and voila, instant de facto ban.

So pardon any skepticism of your intentions, Sava.

Well, then let's create controls that aren't backdoor bans, duh... using the idea, "We can't have gun control because in the past there have been poorly written gun control laws," is kind of a weak argument. Don't you think?

[Sava]

that's an interesting point loinburger... haha

Let's offer gun training to criminals so they are better shots and only kill each other...

[Dis]

hey that's what Clint Eastwood proposed in "The Dead Pool"

It's crazy enough to work

[Sava]

True, only what about crimes committed against innocent people? It's not like all the crimes in America are criminal on criminal crimes.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Really? So shopowners and just poor random bastards in the wrong place at the wrong time are criminals now?

Muggers don't generally intend to kill their victims. Most often when a victim is shot in a mugging it's because they tried (unsuccessfully) to defend themselves, or because the mugger was so nervous that he merely perceived that the victim was trying to defend himself/herself. Muggers != serial killers.

Another possibility is that the mugger is nervous due to being hepped up on goofballs, in which case no amount of weapons training is going to help their aiming anyway.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Sinapus


Neither. The cause is elsewhere.

Oh and we're hardly the most violent people in the world. Unless you cherry-pick nations, taking the ones w/high control+low crime and ignoring the ones w/high control+high crime.

(Oddly enough, our two most violent crime periods appear to be when certain substances were banned from public consumption. First alcohol, then various drugs.)

If you check the statistics, you will find that among developed nations, the US murder rate is highest by an unhealthy margin. My point was, if you take away the guns, a lot of those murders will be a lot more difficult (if not impossible) to commit. 'Impulse' or random killings will be a lot harder without guns.

Anyway, my key point was that regulating guns won't work because the screening process is bound to be inaccurate. Lawfully possessed guns can be stolen or accessed by by untrained users through careless storage. Criminals can fil out forms and lie on application tests quite easily.

There is no reason in a 21st century, developed nation to need a gun. Hunting and recreational shooting are great hobbies. But it's got to the point where we're letting thousands of people die each year to protect those hobbies. And that just doesn't make sense.

[Sava]

True, SixKyearoldman..., that's humanity's problem though. Since everyone isn't good and moral, we have laws, and people to enforce those laws. With too many laws, things become restrictive. Without laws, things become chaotic. The level of legislation is just a balance between absolute order and chaos. Right now, America is comfortable with tens of thousands of gun-deaths per year. Apparantly, the right to own guns is more important than the right for the victims of gun violence to live.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
If you check the statistics, you will find that among developed nations, the US murder rate is highest by an unhealthy margin. My point was, if you take away the guns, a lot of those murders will be a lot more difficult (if not impossible) to commit. 'Impulse' or random killings will be a lot harder without guns.

Are you talking about taking away guns that are already in the hands of owners? It wouldn't be feasible. There are too many unregistered guns already out there, and there wouldn't even be an effective way to reclaim guns that were registered. "I know that I've got five registered glocks, but I lost them all in a fishing accident. They're at the bottom of the sea." I also shudder to think of the number of people who would fight to maintain possession of their firearms. If the government ever tries to confiscate everybody's firearms, then I'm going to try to move to Siberia before the nation erupts.

There is no reason in a 21st century, developed nation to need a gun. Hunting and recreational shooting are great hobbies. But it's got to the point where we're letting thousands of people die each year to protect those hobbies. And that just doesn't make sense.

Very few, if any, murders are performed with shotguns or hunting rifles. They're not very easy to conceal, compared to a pistol.

[Kepler]

Originally posted by loinburger

I thought that bills of attainder were orders of execution.

Perhaps you're thinking of letters of marque and reprisal? While those are usually thought of as confiscatory, they may have been used to put out official government hits in the mercantile age.

[David Floyd]

Apparantly, the right to own guns is more important than the right for the victims of gun violence to live.

The right to private property is, to me, more important than restricting individual rights in order to get safety. To quote a cliche, "One who would exchange a little liberty for a little safety will have neither."

Kepler,

Perhaps you're thinking of letters of marque and reprisal? While those are usually thought of as confiscatory, they may have been used to put out official government hits in the mercantile age.

Letters of marque and reprisal were traditionally used as a method of state-supported piracy.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man


If you check the statistics, you will find that among developed nations, the US murder rate is highest by an unhealthy margin. My point was, if you take away the guns, a lot of those murders will be a lot more difficult (if not impossible) to commit. 'Impulse' or random killings will be a lot harder without guns.

Uh... so why is England's violent crime rate (with handguns even) going up?

Perhaps one might want to stop using "Oh look, in these countries had low murder rates but the US had high murder rates so it must be the guns!" for one's criteria. (Especially since crimes been going down in the US despite an increase in gun ownership.)

Anyway, my key point was that regulating guns won't work because the screening process is bound to be inaccurate. Lawfully possessed guns can be stolen or accessed by by untrained users through careless storage. Criminals can fil out forms and lie on application tests quite easily.

...and making guns completely illegal will stop criminals from breaking the law how, exactly?

There is no reason in a 21st century, developed nation to need a gun.

Unless you are one of the few who finds themself about to get assaulted by someone (who may or may not have a gun) after which it is a bit too late to acquire one.

Also, if you commit no harm with one, why are you so concerned?

Hunting and recreational shooting are great hobbies. But it's got to the point where we're letting thousands of people die each year to protect those hobbies. And that just doesn't make sense.

Since those people die because of criminals and not "hobbies", it is no surprise that it doesn't make sense. Perhaps you should find another scapegoat for criminal acts.

Or are you one of the ones who also think that people die in hate crimes each year to "protect" freedom of speech?

[Dr Strangelove]

Has anyone on this forum ever been shot? Does anyone here know someone who has been killed by a gun, or who has been shot and suvived? Does anyone here know someone who lost a family member or friend to gun violence? Does anyone here know someone who has a family member of friend who has been shot and survived?

[David Floyd]

Has anyone on this forum ever been shot? Does anyone here know someone who has been killed by a gun, or who has been shot and suvived? Does anyone here know someone who lost a family member or friend to gun violence? Does anyone here know someone who has a family member of friend who has been shot and survived?

How does that have ANYTHING to do with the right of government to restrict private property?

[Sava]

I witnessed a shooting when I was at the University of Illinois. A bunch of gang members tried coming into this party I was at. When some guys from a frat told them they couldn't come in, they came back and one of them shot one of the frat guys. I was 20 feet away from it.

My grandfather's best friend (of like 60 years), had his arm shot off in WW2. Does that count?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Does anyone here know someone who has been killed by a gun, or who has been shot and suvived?

My old boss was accidentally shot in the chest by his cousin, who didn't know that the gun was loaded. He survived, though, with no appreciable permanent damage (just scarring). My grandpa was shot in the ankle in WWII, but I don't think that's what you were asking about.