Since the Sandy Hook shooting, many people are blaming the United States' gun-laws so I was wondering what each person thought on the subject.
I, myself have mixed feelings on the subject. As the saying goes "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". So people with the intent of inflicting harm with firearms will find a way if they wish. On top of that, imposing a stricter law would have many consequences on a country's illegal black market, politics, etc. At the same time, however, living in Canada, the US's northern neighbor, statistically, we have much lower fire-arm related violence and stricter firearm laws. I do think, as well, that making fire-arms harder to obtain would deter some, but not all especially those determined. Way I see it, if I were to have the incentive to go on a violent rampage, I would have zero idea where to obtain firearms, even if I were to really try I would not have an idea where to start. So, I think it would deter the average person from going on such violent rampages but not those who have the connections or are engaged in a lifestyle of a violent manner, like those involved in gangs.
Stats world-wide: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/crimurwit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms
A few questions for gun control advocates.
Why is the Sandy Hook incident being cited as an argument for gun control? The massacre happened in a facility where guns are prohibited. The massacre illustrates the folly of such policy, in my estimation. It illustrates the mistaken notion of relying on police to prevent such an occurrence. Last week there were reports of a similar indiscriminate shooting occuring in an Oregon shopping mall. The event garnered national press coverage. The national press reported that the shooter opened up on complete strangers and managed to kill two people before turning the gun on himself. What wasn't reported nationally, only locally, was that the shooter took his life after a legally armed citizen drew his weapon on the assailant. How many lives were saved by virtue of the right to bear arms. That is impossible to answer... but I do think it should provide a contrast on the policies advocated by those who seek to restrict firearms and those who seek to retain the expressed intention of the federalists and anti federalists penning the bill of rights.
Why focus on guns? It has been argued that indiscriminate killers are most lethal when armed with firearms. Colleen makes the argument that knives can be outrun... while bullets cannot be. If we were limited in scope to only guns or knives... this argument would hold more water. The fact is that an indiscriminate killer employing pipe bombs could effect greater carnage faster, with less risk of being stopped prematurely by an armed respondent. Like wise... an indiscriminate killer could poison a water supply, if he was disposed to wanton carnage. An indiscriminate killer behind the wheel of an automobile would be a more formidable assailant. A gun is really only the preferred weapon of a killer with a deliberate target. Only in places where the gunman knows that he will not be confronted by an equally lethal armed respondent can he take the time to kill such a number. This is why these shootings tend to aggregate in gun prohibited zones.
Why are these children any more important than the young victims of our drone strikes in the theater of combat we're calling the war on terrorism? By 2011... at least 168 children had been killed by drone strikes in Pakistan alone, by agents of the American state. This is an important bit of data because gun control advocates are arguing that only state agents should be armed. The Pakistanis have been disarmed to reduce their capability of resisting our war on islamic individuality. Those crying crocodile tears in deference to the young lives lost because of hard headed Bill of Rights supporters... where is your outrage for the innocent lives lost employing the policies of control advocates? The reason we have a 2nd amendment... is as a deterrent to a rogue tyrannical state. Those who drew up the Bill of Rights understood the threat of a central state to grow and threaten the populace.
If the only correlation between the ratio of homicides is the availability of firearms... why the disconnect between homicide rate and gun ownership in places like Switzerland and Kennesaw, Georgia? These are anomalies that gun control advocates would rather not be widely known because they fly in the face of the fundamental assumptions they argue.
This is the cognitive dissonance of the cult of true believers on the left. Seems like inconvenient facts are routinely ignored in an effort to push through wrongheaded policies. These arguments seem incontrovertible... but rational thought is trumped by sensationalism, unfortunately.
the major problem with any kind of gun ban is always in the definition of what they wish to ban- tonight i heard a woman telling us they were going to ban firearms designed for warfare and close combat- herein lies the problem- firearm evolution has been driven by warfare, from the very first 'hand cannon' designed to pierce a knights armor to the matchlock, wheel lock, flintlock, percussion cap, and eventually the brass cartridge. all of these were a direct result of the need for more efficient arms on the battlefield. so is the liberal agenda to ban ALL FIREARMS through this loophole? where would it stop- any student of history could point out the fact of warfare driven weapons technology. very few if any firearms in existence today owe their invention to simple sporting purposes- even the venerable shotgun evolved from the blunderbuss which was made for warfare and to be able to load on horseback. so to use the statement that combat related firearms would be banned would pretty much leave the field open to get rid of all of them. using the premise of 'detachable magazines' or multi shot capability would wipe out many sporting rifles as well- my 30-06 remington 742 would be on the chopping block because i could create a larger capacity magazine if i so wished- so the definition is the issue and the trust of the law abiding citizens in their government that they would not seek to take away all weapons. mayhem was not invented with firearms- it has been a part of our human existence since we were able to hold a tool or a weapon- which doesn't make it right but it is nevertheless a fact. i would not wish to live in a country that punishes the law abiding according to the actions of the criminally insane who would inevitably find a way to kill another person or persons with whatever means they could come up with. this gun ban idea simply will not fly and will only serve to drive a wider rift between left and right in this country and would only serve the hidden agenda of our current president in making us all 'subjects' and not citizens.
one more thing to consider here is what i have heard recently from the 'lefties', smaller capacity magazines to not allow an assailant to put a lot of projectiles into the target. so a weapon that can put ROUGHLY 50 9mm projectiles into a target area with 5 pulls of the trigger- or 20 projectiles into the target area with 2 pulls of the trigger would sound like a serious weapon to ban - RIGHT?? well if you agreed with that as a weapon to ban then you just banned pump action or semi auto and DOUBLE BARREL - "SHOTGUNS" firing 000 BUCKSHOT with a 5 ROUND MAGAZINE ( the double barrel obviously Two). we need to stand our ground against the high capacity magazine argument because it is a false and useless attempt to do something that will not in reality accomplish anything. BTW- -great history note ONEMANDOG- although in these days where people can not be truly trusted to the raising of a child or are prone to addictions and more mental illness- every household with a mandated firearm maybe not such a good idea- it should remain a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND A PERSONAL DECISION.
Well there are already laws in place ie: background checks, waiting periods, ect. ect. "Those" laws could be enhanced. Also, I would support training for gun dealers and gun shop owners to help them recognize people who may seem troubled (If they could not be greedy and just outright refuse to sell to someone) Enhanced security from the answer above, absolutley. Far more money is wasted on lesser causes. As for an outright "ban", I'm forever against it. It is just wrong wrong wrong to take rights away from law abiding people and it will not solve the problem. As I've said before, these things look good on paper, but only create a bigger black market for guns and would lead to more un-registered, un-traceable weapons out there. Once a right is taken away, the easier it is to take another one, and then another. where does it end? The entire problem is rooted in the moral decay of this country and people who are becoming more and more lost, troubled and hopeless.
There's one simple fact people ignore when it comes to controversial subjects like this: countries such as Canada and Australia who have stricter laws, "coincidentally" have much, much less crime. You can't argue with that. And like Colleen said, the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" bullcr*p is extremely flawed. If someone was to walk into a school with a knife, I highly doubt there would be as many casualties. The US needs to wake up and realise that the safety of their citizens is much more important than their pride. They want to be able to say that they can defend themselves and protect their rights but that's not what's happening. They're simply handing young minds with questionable intentions dangerous weapons and then blaming it on something else when these kinds of tradgedies can be avoided.
the problem here is that a knife is a silent and highly concealable weapon- in trained hands it would deployed without running- the assailant is within touching distance of his intended target- and the victim is stabbed in a vital area and usually runs off bleeding profusely before bleeding out. the idea promoted in HOLLYWOOD movies of a killer carrying a blade in plain site is merely one more HOLLYWOOD delusion. in the real world you would not run from what you can not see until it is employed and then it is too late- knives are brutally efficient tools. of course you also have crosssbows, regular bows etc. capable of delivering a cutting blade at greater distance than a knife and can be employed with an equal amount of silence with just as deadly of an outcome.
Changing the laws isn't going to do much of anything. I think we should tighten school security around the nation. Hire security TEAMS, not just have one person to "protect" an ENTIRE building of people. I also think that there should be a metal detector, full body pat down, before anyone is allowed to enter the main part of the building. The students in elementary schools, no pat down but everyone entering the building goes through the metal detector.
My mom told me that this won't happen because 'it's too expensive' and that's [someone I forgot] -- I was thinking, shouldn't a SAFETY come before saving a few extra bucks? Shouldn't a LIFE come before anything?
I don't know, I might not be making any sense but this is how I feel.
While it is true that swords and knives are highly effective in well-trained hands, a massacre of this magnitude could not have occurred with the use of a knife. The school would have been evacuated earlier because knives require closer proximity, and a number of people could easily overpower a knife-wielder of any skill level. Furthermore, it takes much longer and more effort to kill someone with a knife as opposed to a gun. In this way knives are not all that efficient at all. I am not actually against guns, but a gun is certainly superior to a knife if one is looking to commit crimes of this nature. While Hollywood makes knives look out-dated, old Samurai movies make them look more effective than they actually are.
An easier way to resolve this would be to create stricter means-tests for guns. This would not eliminate murders or violence by any means, but it would make guns harder to access if one has a criminal history or mental illness (depending on the kind; e.g., ASPD). I don't believe in banning firearms, but they certainly are too easy to procure in the United States (e.g., criminals can get people to buy them on their behalf). I'm not sure if there is a limit as to how many guns one person can own, but if you restrict people to one gun, this would reduce the incidence of people buying guns for others because they would then not be able to purchase them for their own protection.
Not to mention that without guns, countries become vulnerable to attack from those countries which don't hold such pacifist ideologies. I think guns need to be regulated better over there, but certainly not banned. There's really no global moral 'right' on this topic, but there are contextual rights, and banning guns in America really wouldn't solve anything. It would just mean that the only people with guns would be criminals buying them from illegal arms dealers / the black market. I wish we lived in a world were guns were unnecessary, but we do not. I wish I had one, lol.
You know, the argument that people will still find a way to kill regardless of whether or not guns are lawful is somewhat flawed.
Yes, if someone wants to kill, they can use a knife, however, it's easier to run from a knife than a high-powered rifle and the end result is much less impacted.
Of course people will still get their hands on guns, even if they are against the law, but there's no reason why it should be such an easy thing to do. The harder they make it, the fewer succeed.
I was just offering counterpoints. Not specifically targeting you to try and persuade you to my way of thinking... but discourse should never be rejected out of hand. I am afraid too many others share this type of closemindedness. I understand paradigms are not easily overcome, but eventually the correct ones will win out. Nevertheless... I plan to continue commenting whenever I feel compelled to.
knives and or swords have been employed on many many battlefields with extremely deadly results, with the addition of a few chains and a few locks any building could be turned into a very bad environment for murder with nothing more than a blade. read some of the exploits of the gurkha soldiers and their infamous kukri knives in the british military for some examples of what a blade can do.
It isn't a matter of pride... but prudence. History tells us a disarmed population is in greater jeopardy than an armed one. Research the rates of democide and the the eradication of populations following disarmament. Again... the statistics for the anomalies I mention in my post, contradict the assertion you make in your reference to Canadian and Australian homicide rates.
in a locked environment- yes, where the insane person is in complete control via terror and lies- a weapon such as a knife is pretty much all you need. i really don't want to spell out what i am saying any further to not inspire any future nut from drawing inspiration from my view point.
The highest casualty school massacre in America occurred in Bath, Michigan in 1927. Thirty-eight children died along with six other adults. The massacre was carried out via three bombs.
It's a nice idea, but yep much too expensive. I'd imagine a significant increase in the amount taxpayers pays to accommodate for such a thing for each and every school.
History note: George Washington signed a bill requiring every household to own a rifle.
Dude, no matter how many answers you comment on, you're not gonna change my opinion.