The Gun Lobby Proposes To Equip Students

[Moonlight_Graham]

Lonelywreckage said:

 

The only realistic solution, if America decides to ammend its constitution, as there's no way in hell people will be volunteering up their existing stock.

 

Actually it makes total sense. The Constitution says there's a right to bear arms. Doesn't say anything about bullets!

Edited September 22, 2009 by Moonlight_Graham

[TheSteve]

Nice. 3.4" or 5"? I've been looking in to getting my restricted license on and off for years, here. I really should pull the trigger, as it were, on that one.

 

5 inch barrel because in Canada our government has determined its citizens cannot be trusted with a handgun that has a barrel shorter then 4.17 inches.

 

Taking the firearms course in Canada is a lot of fun. I was always scared of firearms before I did it. I had never handled one or fired one before hand. Now I know if I ever come across one I know how to prove it safe and if ever needed, use it.

I consider my firearms toys as that is all they can be used for in Canada. I can take it out of my safe, transport it to a range, punch holes in paper and then return it to my safe.

I was hugely anti-gun years ago. These days I have no desire to arm the masses but I would support "concealed carry" for those who pass the appropriate background checks and proficiency requirements.

 

There is no one to protect you in this world but yourself, the criminals have more rights then the victims. You can never take the guns out of the criminals hands, so why take them out of licensed law abiding citizens?

 

Wonder if Matt has ever been to a shooting range...

 

Anyway, the P22 is fun and about as small of a gun as you can get in Canada, my wifes Glock 17 is more fun though!

[Doormat]

Anyway, the P22 is fun and about as small of a gun as you can get in Canada, my wifes Glock 17 is more fun though!

 

Mod Glock 17 into a sort of Glock 18.

...?

Profit.

 

Equipping students with guns is pretty lol. Make do with knives.

[Computer]

Concealed carry... Plaxico Burress style.

[Moonlight_Graham]

sorry about your penis bro

 

;)

 

excellent work my friend.

[TheSteve]

;)

 

excellent work my friend.

 

I'd expect nothing less from people living in Bantario...

[Moonlight_Graham]

I'd expect nothing less from people living in Bantario...

 

All you people in British Killumbia want to do is murder people with bullets so u can be like your U.S. buddies.

[LonelyWreckage]

Actually it makes total sense. The Constitution says there's a right to bear arms. Doesn't say anything about bullets!

Your use of actually makes me think you've confused my post as disagreeing with you - I wasn't.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Your use of actually makes me think you've confused my post as disagreeing with you - I wasn't.

 

i know.

[HoboFactory]

The problem with the banning guns theory is that, in practice, it hasn't been shown to work.

 

In the USA, California is the state with the strictest laws regarding guns, there are waiting periods, there is a ban on all weapons with an ammunition capacity greater than 10, guns must be registered, they've passed a law which requires micro-stamping, they've come up with ways to prevent the sale of low-end, inexpensive guns which lawmakers assume are more attractive to criminals, their police departments are not required to give anyone who can pass a criminal and psychological background check a permit to carry a gun if this person applies, hell they apparently even ban bayonets, I guess because drive-by bayonetting has become such a rampant problem these days.

 

Just to the north, in Oregon, there's no waiting periods, you can buy a gun with whatever ammo capacity you want, even semi-auto rifles with a 75-round magazine, no microstamping, no registration, if you can pass a criminal and psych background check (and you can document that you've been trained in handgun safety and the pertinent laws) the state is required to issue you a permit to carry a gun if you choose to apply for one.

 

Yet California's rates of violent crime dwarf those of Oregon. No, not the sheer numbers of violent crimes that are accounted for by differences in population, but actual per 100,000 rates. California has roughly twice the rate of violent crime. Of the 15 most dangerous cities in the USA, 3 are in California, the most dangerous is in NJ, the state with second strictest gun laws in the nation. One could argue, well maybe those guns used in crimes in California are probably coming from places like Oregon. But it's against federal laws to buy/sell a gun across state lines without a federally licenses dealer on the receiving end. One would be committing a federal crime if they go into a different state and sell firearms there, regardless of whether those arms are legal in the state they are being sold in. And one cannot drive to another state and buy a gun and then go back to their home state with it. Neither a federally licensed dealer, nor a private citizen is allowed to sell a gun to someone who isn't a resident of that same state. The only way to get a gun from another state into your state is to order it to be shipped to a federally licensed shop in your home state, who will ascertain its legality, document it, perform a background check, and then transfer it to you for some fee.

 

So, Californians have less access to guns, and the guns they have access to are of lesser capability, following the "less guns=less crime" logic, they should have less crime, compared to people that have greater access to guns, and access to more capable guns. Oddly enough, the reverse is true. There's plenty of other examples, Chicago has a complete handgun ban, still an extremely dangerous place, same for Washington DC.

 

The UK has a ban on handguns, and yet it has the highest rate of violent crime compared to the EU nations. It even has a greater rate of violent crime than the USA or South Africa.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Hobo, i think demographics, population, and urbanization have a lot to do with the differences in Oregon and Cali violent crime rates. A lot of big cities and Cali, which means ghettos which = crime.

 

Also, 90% of all people in Oregon are white. In CA, only 60% are white. This isn't meant to be racist, just reality, but the browner your skin in the U.S. (and the world for that matter) the poorer you are likely to be. And one of the biggest (if not the biggest unless i'm mistaken) indicator of crime is poverty.

Edited December 21, 2009 by Moonlight_Graham

[HoboFactory]

Oregon actually has a higher poverty rate than California, not significantly so, but still.

 

But in any case, I think, what you said isn't actually inconsistent with what I said. I was simply arguing that the "more guns=more crime" or "less guns=less crime" idea is flawed and used some examples to illustrate that. My point was, that there's not really a correlation between how strict gun laws are and how many violent crimes occur.

 

You pointed out that urbanization, demographics, poverty rates, etc tend be good indicators of crime, and my point was the legal access to guns isn't a good indicator of crime. There's no contradiction.

 

Recently, an article was published by MSNBC that stated in 2009, more police officers were shot in the USA than in 2008, and that some have attributed this to how readily available guns are. Yet the state with the highest number of officers killed by gunfire has among the strictest laws, and the states with the loosest laws had few if any police officer deaths. I don't know that I would go so far as to say access to guns prevents crime, but the facts seem to point to the fact that "more guns=more crimes" is a flawed idea at best.

[AnOceanPearl]

[LonelyWreckage]

The UK has a ban on handguns, and yet it has the highest rate of violent crime compared to the EU nations. It even has a greater rate of violent crime than the USA or South Africa.

Which then speaks wonders for the gun control, doesn't it - given the UK comes 17th in the world for murders per capita beating many EU countries, with a murder rate of 0.014 per 1,000 compared to the USA's #39 0.042 per 1,000.

 

I'd venture to suggest we have the highest rate of violent crime in the EU because socially - like the USA - we've went for uncontested neoliberalism as apposed to "Euro-socialism" since the 70's and as such have an extremely unequal society with slums that are ripe for crime. Guns definitely don't equal crime, they just help it.

 

But in any case, I think, what you said isn't actually inconsistent with what I said. I was simply arguing that the "more guns=more crime" or "less guns=less crime" idea is flawed and used some examples to illustrate that. My point was, that there's not really a correlation between how strict gun laws are and how many violent crimes occur.

I didn't think anyone was suggesting that, though ? I know I agreed with someone earlier who basically pointed out these attacks will still exist, I'm just happy knowing they'll be far less deadly and easier to carry out - and I'm in no small majority, thankfully.

[HoboFactory]

Guns definitely don't equal crime, they just help it.

 

What does it even mean to help crime? I guess like forks and spoons help obesity? Sure forks and spoons are used when people get fat, but changing how available they are won't increase or decrease obesity rates because they're not the problem.

 

I know I agreed with someone earlier who basically pointed out these attacks will still exist, I'm just happy knowing they'll be far less deadly and easier to carry out

 

Is that so? Some guys with box cutters managed to kill 3,000 people in a single day. Take a look at all of the most prolific serial killers on record... it seems like they had no difficulty killing dozens, even hundreds of people without using firearms at all, or even without using knives.

 

On top of that, strict gun laws don't affect how accessible guns are to criminals. It's illegal to possess marijuana in the USA, yet more than 40% of Americans aged 12 and over have tried it at least once. If someone wants to commit a crime (that is break the law) and they want to use a gun to do it and a gun isn't legally available to them... all they have to do is break that law too!

[LonelyWreckage]

What does it even mean to help crime?

Help as in, they make the act of murder incredibly easier ? Do you disagree with that ?

 

I guess like forks and spoons help obesity? Sure forks and spoons are used when people get fat, but changing how available they are won't increase or decrease obesity rates because they're not the problem.

Well, yeah - indirect but with far more culpability for the negative effects given guns were created with killing people in mind. As you say, removal of knives and forks from our society will see no difference regarding the obesity rate, but as I've intimated in my above post, I'm willing to bet the opposite for guns.

 

Is that so? Some guys with box cutters managed to kill 3,000 people in a single day.

Perhaps - I've never heard of such a case - but that'd mean we're talking an armed militia-hostage situation or these are taking place in a part of the world where law enforcement isn't up to Western standards because presumably they'd have had to have all been done seperately if they were done using box cutters, and I'd like to think we could catch them after half of 300 individual murders (I know - ambitious target !).

 

Take a look at all of the most prolific serial killers on record... it seems like they had no difficulty killing dozens, even hundreds of people without using firearms at all, or even without using knives.

Yeah, but you do realise a list of THE WORLD'S MOST DEADLIEST SERIAL-KILLERS EVAR! aren't representative of murder on the whole? They're far more likely to go for unconventional methods - if only because they're more likely to prolong it in order to gain enjoyment from it. You could probably accumulate all those deaths caused by other weapons in your list and they still wouldn't make a dent on the US's yearly statistics - guns would still be the most used weapon.

 

On top of that, strict gun laws don't affect how accessible guns are to criminals. It's illegal to possess marijuana in the USA, yet more than 40% of Americans aged 12 and over have tried it at least once.

It's illegal to possess marijuana in the UK too, but I know exactly where to find it here, and I know dozens of mates who smoke it on a regular basis; alternatively I haven't the foggiest where to get a gun and I know absolutely no-one who has one (even my friends from the shadier areas of town wouldn't) - so I don't think drugs are all that comparable.

 

If someone wants to commit a crime (that is break the law) and they want to use a gun to do it and a gun isn't legally available to them... all they have to do is break that law too!

Right, but I've never said guns = crime and that the removal solves all problems, I'm saying guns help crime (you've even quoted it, ffs).

[HoboFactory]

Help as in, they make the act of murder incredibly easier ? Do you disagree with that ?

 

And access to cars sure makes driving drunk easier, but should we limit access to cars for EVERYONE just because a narrow minority chooses to drive drunk?

 

And you fail to take into account that guns have the capacity to PREVENT crime too. It happens all the time.

 

Well, yeah - indirect but with far more culpability for the negative effects given guns were created with killing people in mind. As you say, removal of knives and forks from our society will see no difference regarding the obesity rate, but as I've intimated in my above post, I'm willing to bet the opposite for guns.

 

Why would you bet the opposite? It seems like all you're going off is a gut feeling. There's lots of real world examples that contradict that gut feeling. Since the 1990's, the USA has moved in favor of gun rights, with almost every state allowing concealed carry. Within the last year, the sales of guns and ammunition (and applications for concealed carry permits) have skyrocketed. The FBI is actually reporting the lowest crime rate the nation has seen in decades. If guns "help" crime, and Americans are buying guns and ammo at rates faster than manufacturers are able to provide them, should there, by your logic, be a massive increase in crime too?

 

Perhaps - I've never heard of such a case...

 

Oh yes you have. It was only a handful guys that pulled it off, in a single day, and it was in the USA, too.

 

Right, but I've never said guns = crime and that the removal solves all problems, I'm saying guns help crime (you've even quoted it, ffs).

 

That wasn't my point with that statement.

[thenobody]

And access to cars sure makes driving drunk easier, but should we limit access to cars for EVERYONE just because a narrow minority chooses to drive drunk?

 

And you fail to take into account that guns have the capacity to PREVENT crime too. It happens all the time.

 

Yeah, there is a reason why we regulate alcohol use here in the states. Whether one agrees with it or not, there is a reason. There is also a need for laws regarding guns. Giving everybody a gun doesn't help.

 

You fail to take into account that everybody having a gun with them could also make things horribly worse. When the shots are firing, who is to say more innocent people aren't killed? Usually you want to stop violence, not create more of it. If somebody gets to the point where they feel the need to bring a gun to a school, I highly doubt they give a damn if they come out alive.

[HoboFactory]

Yeah, there is a reason why we regulate alcohol use here in the states. Whether one agrees with it or not, there is a reason. There is also a need for laws regarding guns. Giving everybody a gun doesn't help.

 

You're trying to contradict an argument that I never made. I never said, "everyone should be given a gun."

 

 

You fail to take into account that everybody having a gun with them could also make things horribly worse. When the shots are firing, who is to say more innocent people aren't killed? Usually you want to stop violence, not create more of it. If somebody gets to the point where they feel the need to bring a gun to a school, I highly doubt they give a damn if they come out alive.

 

I fail to take into account an utterly implausible hypothetical scenario? Again, you're referring the ludicrous scenario of "everybody having a gun." Of course not everyone should have a gun, just like not everyone should have a car, a knife, or children. Why punish the law-abiding for the actions of people for break laws? If we're gonna talk about people that "don't give a damn if they come out alive." Do you think gun laws stop them? These people want to kill other people, but you expect them to abide by firearms laws? As if they need guns to accomplish their objectives anyways.