Gun Control

[Chef]

Chef,
I'm not sure if being outgunned would necessarily stop the "spree killer" type of crazy person. Most people like that are counting on being killed at the end of their rampage anyway, so fear of their own death isn't necessarily a deterrent .

Another citizen if they were armed, brave and didn't panic probably could have taken him down, but by that time the crazy person has already done their damage.

swedd alluded to my answer. you are correct, you could never ever stop someone from trying to do something like this if they wanted too. and when you put the scenario such that one or two folks in a movie theater/school etc are carrying, they maybe could stop the person from killing 30 unarmed people, but it would require a calm person who can really shoot well in other words it isn't guaranteed at all that they would stop a prepared shooter. but imagine if 40 out of 1000 (4%) of the people in a movie theater, pulled a gun and engaged (not spray and pray, but were prepared to and moved to stop) the shooter? sure, there is alot more risk of "friendly fire" but i guarantee less people would be killed in total and in most instances it would only be the attacker.

[Plowright]

From an outsiders perspective, which I know is severely limited... The problem isn't anything to to with the gun law, IMO they should outlaw guns for a totally different reason. These people who go and commit these horrible crimes would be able to obtain weapons at a click of a finger even if they were "outlawed". Plus, any president who outlaws guns isnt going to be winning the next election unless he discovers the cure to cancer. The problem is at the route of the USA's mental health support IMO

[bing!]

I'm inclined to agree with this lady regarding firearms "proliferation" as a means of curtailing shooting sprees...

link

[SWedd523]

IMO they should outlaw guns for a totally different reason.

What reason would that be?

[SWedd523]

I'm inclined to agree with this lady regarding firearms "proliferation" as a means of curtailing shooting sprees...

Then why don't shooting sprees happen in places where guns are "proliferated"?


Colombine? Gun free zone. No way to protect yourself
U of T? Gun free zone. No way to protect yourself
Virginia Tech? Gun free zone.
Aurora? Gun free zone.
Oregon Mall?
Postal service massacre (coined the phrase "going postal")?
Countless others


When was the last time you heard somebody say, "Man that shooting spree at the gun store down the street was terrible" Probably never.

[bing!]

Then why don't shooting sprees happen in places where guns are "proliferated"?

I don't mean to be brash, but have you read the comment I linked to?

Could a large number of shooting sprees have been prevented if the civilians were packin', most assuredly, but then one has to deal with the fact that any one of them could snap at any moment, make use of their easily accessible firearm and paint the walls red. In this case, the potential solution to the problem immediately becomes a (potential) problem on its own.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating strict gun control or anything like that, in fact, I'm languishing with the rest of the pessimistically inclined, i.e., I think that there is no way to solve this problem without opening other avenues to the shit+fan factory.

[Toocool]

Last time we had this argument, I was very against having guns for all.
However most definately I see the merits to both sides far more.
The question is not gun control, but rather the psychological effects of people having guns and weapons.
Perhaps a solution would be a mandatory psychological test for a renewal of a gun license each year? I wouldn't know.

Definately though, some of these can be attributed to what people watch and what games they play.
Famous case was this kid who rammed people over with a stolen car, later caught and said he felt nothing, simply wanting to replicate the effect the movies and games have on them.
In this world, violence is cool. Big dudes, big guns, lots of blood and adrenaline. Some of these crazies love that feeling, they want to feel it. And so they do stuff like this.

[Chef]

I don't mean to be brash, but have you read the comment I linked to?

Could a large number of shooting sprees have been prevented if the civilians were packin', most assuredly, but then one has to deal with the fact that any one of them could snap at any moment, make use of their easily accessible firearm and paint the walls red. In this case, the potential solution to the problem immediately becomes a (potential) problem on its own.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating strict gun control or anything like that, in fact, I'm languishing with the rest of the pessimistically inclined, i.e., I think that there is no way to solve this problem without opening other avenues to the shit+fan factory.

just a question that i really haven't thought all the way through so feel free to refute/discuss. why do people always ask the "if many more were carrying, what happens when the get mad and/or snap? there would be blood everywhere." my question is, i have been plenty mad when people drive like retards and/or 30 unc students are staring at me as the herd across a crosswalk when my light is green and i need to get somewhere in a hurry. i don't plow through them and never have rammed someone else while driving.

what about just plain fighting when arguing? there are very few fights because of disagreements day to day. in other words, when was the last time you saw a fight in public or even private?

in other words, those that would blow people away when angry are few as evidenced by the number of times it doesn't happen in other areas of everyday life.

[bing!]

what about just plain fighting when arguing? there are very few fights because of disagreements day to day. in other words, when was the last time you saw a fight in public or even private?

Dunno about the US, but it's pretty common here, especially when/where there's alcohol involved. It's simply a matter of math, if the number of firearms amongst the general populace increases x times, then the likelihood of an accident involving said weapons or an innocent bystander literally biting the bullet intended for another party in a pointless and overzealous conflict between wannabe thugs increases by the same amount.

Luckily, procuring firearms in Bosnia isn't a straightforward process as far as I'm aware (there are no gun stores), which leaves the barbarians with nothing but dull blades to vent their frustrations amongst each other.

In a perfect world, wherein everyone would treat their guns with respect and use them only in self-defense, I'd have no qualm with everyone being armed, but people are fucking retarded whereby such a scenario would eventually result in even more casualties than is presently the case. Control doesn't work, total lack of control doesn't work, any way one approaches the issue, potential for abuse arises. Learning to recognize and curtail tendencies which may lead one to wanton violence could be a solid first step towards dealing with the problem, but that raises further questions regarding who are the ones that are gonna identify and remedy such tendencies/behaviour, what methods would be applied, who's gonna monitor the process, who would bear responsibility when shit falls apart... it's a goddamn mess. Nothing works. Funnily enough, thinking about it this way makes me wish I had a weapon...

[SWedd523]

but then one has to deal with the fact that any one of them could snap at any moment, make use of their easily accessible firearm and paint the walls red.

Sound like an incredibly large logical leap to make. What's to stop a police officer from snapping and doing the same thing this guy did? What's to stop me from snapping and taking my guns to one of my classes with 300 people? Freedom.

That sort of argument is grounded in a level of fear that I cannot fathom. There are literally hundreds of millions of law abiding gun owners in the US and they manage to get along full well. Taking away the freedom of millions for the safety of a few isn't something I'm willing to do in any case.

Should we take all children away from parents because there's a chance they could snap and turn into Casey Anthony?
Should we ban cigarettes because there's a chance some can contract some sort of terminal cancer?
Should we disallow alcohol because there's a chance they could drive drunk and kill kids on a school bus?

Those things (second two in particular) kill far more people than guns do, yet they aren't designed for deadly means. So I don't see how guns are the issue.