DoomMullet said:
I would just like to point out that everyone in favor of guns is posting from inside the US, while everyone who IS NOT in the US is against guns for the populace.
Like usual, those outside of the country have the best point of view on it.
Yes, but it's easy to form a "constructive" opinion when you're the one on the
outside looking
in. Especially in light of an event such as the Virginia Tech shooting.
Regardless of what stance a person takes on the gun debate their opinions are, more often than not, skewed and formed without taking many things into consideration; this a problem in and of itself.
Lets get real and look at some numbers:
In 2004 there was a total
29,569 gun related deaths in the United States. Those deaths consisted of:
-
16,750 suicides. (56%)
-
11,624 homicides. (39%)
-
649 unintentional shootings. (2%)
-
311 from legal intervention. (1%)
-
235 undeterminted intent. (.7%)
% = Of all gun related deaths in America for '04
These numbers are the most recent ones available via a comprehensive mortality report by the
National Center for Health Statistics.
Now by looking at those numbers alone one can easily come to conclusion that yes, a complete ban on guns could have prevented a good deal of those deaths. Here's the problem:
It'd have to be a COMPLETE ban on guns. That'd require the removal of all guns on the open market, and more importantly, the confiscation of all guns
privately owned.
Removing guns from the open market, while causing a ruckus in it's own right, would be easy in comparison to confiscating those currently in ones possesion. Top it all off that's just the
registered guns I'm talking about, tracking down and confiscating the unregistered firearms is a different problem all together.
That's when reality kicks in, it'd be a legal campaign that would end up being nothing more than another
"War on Drugs." A futile attempt at controlling something while wasting billions of tax dollars and resources. And all for what? To save some 12,500+ people?
* I don't mean to sound cold or heartless, but in the real world, a money driven world, by looking at those numbers the ends wouldn't justify the means.
* = I say this excluding the deaths from legal intervention and under the assumption those who commited suicide would do so regardless of a firearm being readily available or not.
Don't get me wrong, I see as clearly as the next person that there is something wrong, but at the same time I'm keeping my head out of the clouds and my thoughts grounded on reality here. With that said I believe there are a plethora of legal revisions that need to be made in order to severely limit accessibility.
FiveKRunner said:
While gun control will never fully eliminate the problem, as many have pointed out, it certainly would put a huge damper on your average shootings, deter things such as the recent Virginia Tech shooting, and simply make it harder to get a hold of a gun on the spot.
Well, yes, and no. I agree with what you have to say about it putting a damper on the average shootings, but I don't believe it'd put much of a damper on something like the Virginia Tech shooting. Due to recent developments it's been brought to light that that incident may have been a premeditated act that Cho Seung-hui thought of as far as a month in advance. Knowing this, even without firearms readily available, someone with a previous record of mental instability who's driven by a hate so strong to kill 30+ people would find a way to go about doing something just as a terrible. Example: Using crudely made, short fused, pipe bombs. Instructions for something like that can readily be found online, or in some instances at your local library. All required elements can be purchased at your local hardware store, and with a kill radius of 10 feet he could of killed just as many people (if not more) but throwing 2 or 3 into a full, non-auditorium seating classroom.
Also, it's interesting to note that two of the most violent events, against citizens, in American history didn't involve firearms of any sort. These being the Oklahoma City Bombing (Fertilizer Bomb) and 9/11 (Planes hijacked by terrorists with knives/box cutters).
Altmer said:
They should just outlaw firearms altogether, not even police officers should carry them. You cannot trust anyone with a weapon. People will always kill people, as Trax mentioned, but I am not putting my life in the hands of strangers; not even if they are meant to uphold the law. Police men can be just as corrupt as the rest of us, perhaps even more due to their PRIVILEGED right to wear these guns. It is an inherent flaw in humans that wielding more power than someone else always ends in the misuse of that some power. Do not offer anyone the opportunity to be stronger than anyone else, because when the time is come, it will be used. Humanity is not good with self-control.
I advocate the immediate destruction of all weapons. No weapons, no war, a hell of a lot less violence.
I mean no disrespect, but all that you said is completely asinine. Without absolute reinforcement outlawing firearms does nothing, to make this point clear take into consideration the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. It lasted from 1994 to 2004 and outlawed the sale, production, and possession of fully-automatic, firearms. Within that 10 year time frame we had incidents like the infamous
North Hollywood Shootout where
2 heavily armed bank robbers held off
300+, underarmed, LAPD officers until they commited suicide. Under a suggestion like yours they would have gotten away with the robbery no problem and continued running amuck. Why?
Because there's a few bad cops out there. Deriving a whole from a part is seriously flawed thinking man, get real.
The collective removal of all weapons sounds nice, but as long as a person has the ability to make a fist there will always be violence. We're not living in the world of
Walden Two, hence why there's a need for armed military and law enforcement.
EDIT: The suggestion of a firearm black market appearing under a gun ban is a very valid argument. Sadly it hasn't been presented properly in this thread, and I don't feel the need to elaborate unless prompted.
