Massive School Shooting at an Elementary School

[Regulus]

If only the police have guns, the only way to get a gun is to steal one from them. Yeah, that's a bright idea.

Fact: most burglars will run away as soon as they realize someone knows what they're doing. Because they don't want to get caught. Only a very small fraction of burglaries are violent, or even involve weapons at all.

Also, you might want to look at this. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/McDowallAvailability.htm

Having a gun for the purpose of self defense is just absurd. We're not barbarians. There are alternatives to killing. Dogs, mace, tasers, surveillance cameras, home security systems... and you think an M-16 is the best way to protect yourself?

For the love of Mufasa, at least load it with rubber bullets.

TLP:

I know taking away guns isn't going to happen, because there's too many people that would never give them up. It's just what I think should happen for any first world country today.

Guns were invented to kill. There is no question about that. But, unlike knives, guns have no practical use in everyday life. Imagine if knives were banned, we'd never be able to open half of all packages, and cooking would be an absolute nightmare.

Combat knives, on the other hand, should be banned, though. Anything that is designed specifically to kill should be against the law, simply because killing is against the law.

Of course there are going to be other things to use as weapons, but the only way to be totally safe in that regard is to ban everything, which, I'm sure we can all agree, is quite ridiculous.

Ultimately, you're right, banning weapons doesn't solve the problem. The problem is, for most intents and purposes, unsolvable.

But that *doesn't* justify owning a gun, any more than it justifies owning an assault helicopter, battle tank, or nuclear missile launcher.

In other words: nuclear missiles don't kill people. People kill people. That does not mean it's okay to own nukes.

[TheLionPrince]

[quote="Regulus"]Also, you might want to look at this. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/McDowallAvailability.htm[/quote]
Thanks for the article, I'll certainly give it a read. But as soon as I click on it, I notice it was written in the mid-1970s, before the Brady Bill was entacted.

[DGFone]

[quote="Regulus"]If only the police have guns, the only way to get a gun is to steal one from them. Yeah, that's a bright idea.[/quote]

Illegal guns get acquired through illegal means. If only police had guns, it would mean that all law-abiding citizens are unarmed, and are sitting ducks for the criminals (who are not famous for following laws). And before you say that then we should ban large guns, short of a minigun, just about can be modified to hide somewhere normal.

[quote="Regulus"]Also, you might want to look at this. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/McDowallAvailability.htm[/quote] This conclusion reached that there isn't enough data to prove one way or another. All they found was the very logical conclusion that the more crime-ridden a place is, the more guns citizens get to defend themselves with.

[quote="Regulus"]Having a gun for the purpose of self defense is just absurd. We're not barbarians. There are alternatives to killing. Dogs, mace, tasers, surveillance cameras, home security systems... and you think an M-16 is the best way to protect yourself?[/quote]

Second amendment. It's not about self-protection, but about the citizenry defending themsleves from tyrants. The US was formed, if I am to use your words, by "barbarians". Also, the Kentucky Rifle in 1776 is more lethal than having an M-16 today. Plus, the police learned the hard way that M-16s are needed. For the same reason why rubber bullets wont work: off-the market bullet-proof vests and armor.

Also, I don't want to hear any [s]censored[/s] about "Communist Obama". It doesn't have to be Obama who might decide to ignore the constitution and take control. Also: Egypt. What if the military wanted to take over? Only some people listen to lawyers. Everyone listen to guns.

[quote="Regulus"]Guns were invented to kill. There is no question about that. But, unlike knives, guns have no practical use in everyday life. Imagine if knives were banned, we'd never be able to open half of all packages, and cooking would be an absolute nightmare. [/quote] Tell that to Texas, Montana, Arizona, or any other large, parsley-populated state. The nearest police officer is two hours away at best, and there is an every day threat of wildlife (which doesn't even comprehend the term 'law') attacking your property. Just tell a farmer that they are not allowed to save their cows from predators.

The problem with the "guns are useless in every-day life" mentality is that it only works in big cities, where there's a cop at every corner block. But for most of the mid-west (where states are threatening cession if guns are banned FYI), banning guns is a government-issued ticket to the bankruptcy office for many in those states.

[quote="Regulus"]But that *doesn't* justify owning a gun, any more than it justifies owning an assault helicopter, battle tank, or nuclear missile launcher. [/quote] Short of a nuke, I think all of these are owned by at least one private citizen. The problem is not guns, nor even military hardware. There's no moral crisis about responsible citizens owning whatever "killing machine" they want.

The problem is what happens when people who wish harm get those. And generally speaking, banning hardware only makes their lives easier.

[Azdgari]

[quote="DGFone"]
The problem with the "guns are useless in every-day life" mentality is that it only works in big cities, where there's a cop at every corner block.[/quote]
Given that big cities are the location of the vast, vast majority of gun crime, the generalization seems appropriate.

[DGFone]

[quote="Azdgari"][quote="DGFone"]
The problem with the "guns are useless in every-day life" mentality is that it only works in big cities, where there's a cop at every corner block.[/quote]
Given that big cities are the location of the vast, vast majority of gun crime, the generalization seems appropriate.[/quote]

Which comes right back to the fact that the more crime there is, the more guns people get. And in big cities, the gun density per population is much lower than in the Mid-West, where everyone have at least one gun.

Plus: If big cities are where all the cops are, and where all the crime is, isn't the problem then that the police are not effective enough?

[Azdgari]

Going back, your argument against rubber bullets strikes me as absurd. You think that a thug breaking into your house is wearing body armor? Well, damn! What if he's got kevlar? Does everyone pack armor piercing rounds these days just in case?

Do you think it's worth researching a less deadly, but still effective, self defense mechanism? As Regulus said... guns are barbaric. That I agree with.

[DGFone]

[quote="Azdgari"]Going back, your argument against rubber bullets strikes me as absurd. You think that a thug breaking into your house is wearing body armor? Well, damn! What if he's got kevlar? Does everyone pack armor piercing rounds these days just in case?

Do you think it's worth researching a less deadly, but still effective, self defense mechanism? As Regulus said... guns are barbaric. That I agree with.[/quote]

So the reason why I say that rubber bullets are ineffective are because of a rather famous robbery by two guys, and how much trouble the police had in stopping them. The robbers wielded AK-47s (which probably helped the police) and body armor (which did not).

I for one, would rather stay on the cautious side and pack real bullets, rather than regret not having them. What I would love the most, though, is to not have to point a gun at a person at all.

Yes, I do fully support searching into non-lethal alternatives. But I still believe that guns should be required as a last-stance against oppressive governments. But if effective non-lethal alternatives will work, those people who simply want to protect themselves can, without having to use "barbaric" (highly debatable) methods.

For instance, I was quite disappointed to learn that a project on special electromagnetic non-lethal system. It's basically a large microwave that you can point at people (needed a Humvee to haul around though), and it will stop them in their tracks. It was tested and was completely harmless.

[TheLionPrince]

I never heard of the rubber bullet argument before Azdgari, that makes a lot of sense. But anyways, I'm curious as to what you would do to stop violence in America that is possible to pass. I'll admit that banning all guns (and I mean every single one) would stop the crime, but that isn't possible, especially given the political climate of 2013. What laws/measures do you want to see passed?

[DGFone]

[quote="TheLionPrince"]I never heard of the rubber bullet argument before, Azdgari, that makes a lot of sense. But anyways, I'm curious to what you tell we should do to stop violence that is possible to pass. I'll admit that banning all guns (and I mean every single one) would stop the crime, but that isn't possible, especially given the political climate of 2013. What laws/measures do you want to see passed?[/quote]

You won't have to ban guns. You'll have to collect them all, melt them down, and search every square-inch of the entire US to get all guns. Then you will habe to completely lock down all the borders so that no foreign guns get in. You will need to destroy all machine shops...

...And deal with angry citizens who need guns. Explain to the military and police why they suddenly can't have guns...

Don't even try to go down the "ban all guns" route: it's impossible.

[Azdgari]

[quote="DGFone"] "barbaric" (highly debatable) methods.
[/quote]
You think sophisticated human beings killing one another isn't barbaric? And that the weapons that cause it are also barbaric?


TLP: Acknowledging the climate, I think
- Limiting legal clip size to 10 (ideally 5 but I think that would be a tough sell) is reasonable.
- More thorough background checks and waiting periods are reasonable.
- Closing the gun show loopholes is not "reasonable", it's a no-brainer.
- More regulation on transfer of guns is reasonable: Your average citizen, without any sort of permit or authorization, should not be able to sell guns. It destroys the point of background checks and undermines basic security.

Are any of those really contentious?