weekend course? when was the last time a criminal got a gun by legal means? danzig, eaton center for example were done by people who were "prohibited" from owning fire arms. there was no legal way for them to acquire them, yet they still had them.
Shooting in Connecticut
- Thread starter D23
- Start date
- Status
weekend course? when was the last time a criminal got a gun by legal means? danzig, eaton center for example were done by people who were "prohibited" from owning fire arms. there was no legal way for them to acquire them, yet they still had them.
it's not the guns, it is not the knives... timmy mcveigh did in a number of people (a freaking day care too) with a truck loaded with diesel and fertilizer. in 2008 13 people were killed and 50 were injured when a saran gas bomb was set off in the tokyo subway system (japan has a total ban on guns). it's not guns that is the problem. arming teachers to the teeth isn't going to help (what if one of those teachers is a psycho?). taking away the guns isn't going to help either. the way we treat and identify our mentally ill is the problem.
the kid didnt have a high capacity magazine, the guns weren't full auto. regular semi auto handgun, standard magazines from what has come out so far.
there are certain measures to stop people like this from getting to these kinds of guns, but a few always slip up. thats the reality as difficult as it is for some to deal with
SFer
Well-known member
You reduce the amount of guns out there and there will be less deaths d/t firearms. That is a fact.
In Canada it takes a weekend. Most people are to lazy to bother = less firearms per household
In Canada you cannot own silencers or large clips or automatic firearms = less change of mass violence
My firearms aren't just hangin out in my drawers and closets. Laws force me to lock up all my firearms and my restricted are only accessible with my fingerprint = nobody can just stop by and grab a couple of my firearms = less chance of violence
There is no doubt mental health is not a huge part of the problem but if someone snaps and has no easy access to firearms then they grab a bat or a knife and injure not kill.
Linking one off multi casualty incidents doesn't really say much. Of course it could happen anytime, anywhere but in countries with tighter gun laws it happens way way less.
I own firearms and I would never give up my right to own them. But I have no problem with the tight controls the government has out in place to keep our society safer than the Great USA.
Last edited:
and how we give the shooters their fame is another problem.
there is a reason that every time someone commits suicide it isnt broadcasted with 24/7 coverage. the news media fuel this, they know it, but money above all else
try 2006: Dawson College Montreal.
legally owned. Police failed to do a proper background check.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting
Last edited:
both montreal school shootings were done with legal guns September 13, 2006, December 6, 1989 were the two dates in montreal, jun 15, 2008 on the university of alberta campus (it was an armed robbery by one of the guards with a gun issued to him by G4S), april 29, 1999 in taber, alberta, 1994 again in montreal. all of them legally obtained firearms.
These kinds of comparisons are constantly touted, and essentially meaningless. Why? because the social demographics are completely different. Different countries, different societies.
Try comparing homicide rates between Canada or the USA with third world countries with extremely strict anti-gun laws, and I'm sure you'll find some shockingly very high non-firearm homicide rates.
PEOPLE kill people. Plain and simple.
and your point? if they couldn't obtain them legally its even easier to get them illegally.
full auto probably would have saved some lives... the perp would have run out of ammo first. i can't remember if it is canada or the usa that has the assault rifles limited to a 3 round burst because guns don't tend to stay on target when shot (recoil). it's not like in the movies.
believe me i understand that. but people who know very little about guns keep bringing this point up.
we limit who can get guns, we limit magazine capacity, background checks, where you can take them etc...
but there will always be people who couldnt care less and will find a way around all the laws, so how will making more laws help anything?
its the same old arguments in circles
you asked, an answer was given. 2008 and it was issued to him "when was the last time a criminal got a gun by legal means?"
Fact: most illegal handguns in Canada come from the US. Their gun laws affect us too. But as others have said, if someone is hellbent on committing a crime like this, they'll do it.
People keep drawing parallels to the attempted massacre in China, which thanks to the choice of weapon lead to no deaths. The only thing it proves is that these people exist everywhere in the world and there's nothing we can do to stop them. What we can do (or what the US can do) is make weapons like this less easily accessible. Their constitiution doesn't allow for outright bans, but there's a lot they can do by way of regulations.
My 18 year old cousin lives in Texas and got his first Glock. 30 minutes in the store and he walked out. All he needed was a valid drivers license. That's inherently the problem. 30 minutes and he was equipped to do what this young man just did. Completely within the limits of the law.
Last edited:
Problem is the wrong laws are being written. like i said earlier, guns are not the problem.
SFer
Well-known member
US has 8000 firearm murders
Canada 170
...
It seems like those laws certainly reduce the chances though.
I hear what you're saying Paul, and as an owner I'm already sick of all the hoops I need to go through just to have my collection on the up and up, but there's no denying that access to legal firearms is a deterrent. The statistics speak for themselves.
SFer
Well-known member
This isn't about 3rd world countries. They have a whole different set of problems.
1st world countries, you reduce the amount of firearms per capita and you reduce firearm related homicides and suicides and accidental deaths.
Already posted but it is very valid
And as already stated: more regulations do nothing to deter criminals intent on disregarding those regulations. All the regulations in the world will not stop people who chose to ignore those regulations.
My comment on 3rd world countries stands: it's not about guns/capita per se, it's about the socio-economic/political factors in those countries that are the real determinants.
To illustrate: your image shows Switzerland having 34 deaths by handgun (a fraction of the the USA figure), yet according to Wikipedia, they have the 4th highest per capita gun ownership in the world with some estimates placing it as high as 2nd highest, behind the USA.
It really isn't the guns that kill people. The gun is a tool. People kill people. Take away the gun, and these sociopaths or psychotics will simply use another type of weapon. Look at Timothy McVeigh: he used fertilizer and diesel fuel!
Any solution to these killing rampages -- any comprehension of them -- needs to address what's wrong with the people committing them, and by extension, what is happening in the society that triggers these people to commit such atrocities.
Simply pointing at "the gun" and wishing they were gone will not and cannot fix this problem.
My comment on 3rd world countries stands: it's not about guns/capita per se, it's about the socio-economic/political factors in those countries that are the real determinants.
To illustrate: your image shows Switzerland having 34 deaths by handgun (a fraction of the the USA figure), yet according to Wikipedia, they have the 4th highest per capita gun ownership in the world with some estimates placing it as high as 2nd highest, behind the USA.
It really isn't the guns that kill people. The gun is a tool. People kill people. Take away the gun, and these sociopaths or psychotics will simply use another type of weapon. Look at Timothy McVeigh: he used fertilizer and diesel fuel!
Any solution to these killing rampages -- any comprehension of them -- needs to address what's wrong with the people committing them, and by extension, what is happening in the society that triggers these people to commit such atrocities.
Simply pointing at "the gun" and wishing they were gone will not and cannot fix this problem.
This isn't about 3rd world countries. They have a whole different set of problems.
1st world countries, you reduce the amount of firearms per capita and you reduce firearm related homicides and suicides and accidental deaths.
Already posted but it is very valid
Last edited:
stevex
Well-known member
lol @ everyone who uses this "the gun is a tool" or "if not a gun, a van full of explosives"
name ONE weapon out there that is more effective, more efficient, and EASIER to use to kill MULTIPLE PEOPLE AT ONCE?
Especially when it's retardedly easy to acquire LEGALLY?
Pulling a trigger is probably a LOT easier than hacking some one's head off or disemboweling 20+ people. Making bombs? Probably a little more work than the average person who just snapped will go through, when oh lookie here, right in my bed side table is my semi automatic handgun that can kill as fast I pull the trigger.
seriously, how can people argue that guns (which their SOLE PURPOSE in design is to KILL) AREN'T a big part of the problem?
name ONE weapon out there that is more effective, more efficient, and EASIER to use to kill MULTIPLE PEOPLE AT ONCE?
Especially when it's retardedly easy to acquire LEGALLY?
Pulling a trigger is probably a LOT easier than hacking some one's head off or disemboweling 20+ people. Making bombs? Probably a little more work than the average person who just snapped will go through, when oh lookie here, right in my bed side table is my semi automatic handgun that can kill as fast I pull the trigger.
seriously, how can people argue that guns (which their SOLE PURPOSE in design is to KILL) AREN'T a big part of the problem?
bombs are ridiculously easy to make and can kill a lot more people at once than a single handgun. Look at Iraq. Look at the Taliban and their IED's. Look at Timothy McVeigh.
attempts to stop this problem by getting rid of guns (an impossibility) will fail, because it doesn't address the problem. As others have already pointed out: similar atrocities happen in countries with strict gun control.
Even IF you get rid of the guns, this kind of crime will continue to happen. So by banning all guns, you will have achieved nothing.
Last edited:
- Status
