Off Topic but ok

[xan_user]

It certainly doesn't when Tom, Dick and Harry already have guns anyway . Anyway, if you had to go out and procure an illegal firearm for your crime of passion/red-misted revenge/whatever, would that not make you think twice?

Exactly, they think twice and use a bomb instead.or a tank. or a missile... where does it end?

I dont know.

But one place it starts, is by playing war games, instilling a false sense of safety and harmlessness when it come to firearms and weapons.

Is there any logical rationalization for a gun that shoots 1000 rounds per minute?

Marksmanship, game hunting, self protection, sure. But there's no reason to make guns, real or fake, if the intended use is for hunting humans.

[Calculus]

Is there any logical rationalization for a gun that shoots 1000 rounds per minute?

Marksmanship, game hunting, self protection, sure. But there's no reason to make guns, real or fake, if the intended use is for hunting humans.

Firstly, you might be interested in this article by PM...
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 03591.html
They have guns that shoot 6000 rounds per minute. Yup, thats a whopping 100 per second! Surely, anyone who wants such a weapon would be broke (as in financially) after a couple minutes of shooting.

Second point. Sad to be the teller of bad news, but guns were made to kill people. Ever since the first wars, weapons have been made more sophisticated: swords, bows, muskets, rifles, tanks, ICBM... The list wont stop, more sophisticated weapons will be built. Just be glad they will be built by us, instead of some group of terrorists who have sworn to attack us. Yes, I realize this all pertains to the military and government associations.

I think that what some people here don't realize is the fact that we live in the United States. The United States, where an individual can do what he/she wants, pursue happiness, as long as it is within the law. Unfortunately, not 100% of the people want to be 'good'. Some will steal, rape, murder... They are scum, but NO society is without them. Even without guns. To me, it doesn't seem fair to take away the right to own a weapon because of these scum. Thats not to say that all gun deaths are on purpose, because as Neil pointed out, there are accidents that have occurred and people have gotten shot. This is sad, but it is not a reason to have guns banned, it is a reason to offer better training, a reason for people to learn from their mistakes and a reason for people to not treat guns lightly. Yes, they can kill. But so can a knife. So can a car. So can alcohol. So can bare hands. I realize that these other methods are not as simple as pulling a trigger... If I wanted to kill someone, I would probable not use a gun, I might try something more subtle, like poisoning... (note to audience, I do not want to kill anyone right now, I was merely trying show my point of view)

Weapons will be around as long as people are around. Sad for some, happy for others.

[NeilBlanchard]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =101690124

[blackworx]

Weapons will be around as long as people are around. Sad for some, happy for others.

A new world record for understatement, right here on SPCR!

(Joking!)

[NeilBlanchard]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =101685019

[Calculus]

A new world record for understatement, right here on SPCR!

Hahaha! Yup... Was just trying to get the point across that weapons do have a point, and they aren't going anywhere fast. An ounce of logical discussion goes a long way...

Anyway, Neil, I can't help but wonder what you are trying to get across with your links to death and destruction. These are sad stories. And I have a feeling that there are more to follow.

Neil, what would be your intelligent theory as to why both of these things happened? I highly doubt that these people saw weapons lying around and suddenly decided to go on a shooting rampage.

[Redzo]

Again...Why ?

[Calculus]

Again...Why ?

I could requote everything posted above and put it all in a nice list for you, or you could read it...

If you cannot see the use for weapons by yourself, then I'm afraid that I can't help you. See, I used to think that some people like blowing things up, that some people like to hit a bulls eye on a target, and I used to think that there were some people who like to do it for fun. Did you see that, I said it was fun. Like riding a sports car is fun, like winning at monopoly is fun, like shooting is fun. Our culture has done a wonderful job of taking man and reducing him to something it can handle. But, we are wild at heart. (I realize that I am probably shooting myself in the foot, and some of you will probably discredit me down for being some type of nut...) Honestly, would you rather be known as 'he's a nice man', or 'he's a dangerous man, but in a good way'.

If you cannot see it, then you have already been taken down. Sorry.

[judge56988]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24 ... public_rss

and

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 094961.ece

Not just guns is it.

[Cov]

Interesting.

1. Leads me to the question: with the removal of guns, would the rate of people killed really decrease ?

If yes, how would the aggression of these poeple who whould have killed (if they had guns), be re-directed ?
In other words, where would the intentions to kill be shifted to instead ?

2. I'd like to know what percentage of people are killed by guns, knifes, poison, by hand or any other object (except guns).

I suspect that the number of kills by guns is lower, which leads me to the conclusion that we are focusing then on the wrong object.
As someone said before, not the item 'kills' but the person does, intentionally.

3. Just this afternoon I heard in the news that a 17 years old teenager came to his school this morning (We 11th March 09) where he finished his college just last year, with a gun taken from his father's desk (without permission), and killed 8 female, 1 male students, 3 teachers, 2 random people from the street and finally himself.
Two police officers were wounded, but not life threatening.

His motive is unknown at this point.

This is going through the news all day as I type this.

[Calculus]

Ahem, now that thats out of my system, back to the matter at hand.

2. I'd like to know what percentage of people are killed by guns, knifes, poison, by hand or any other object (except guns).

Well, I found lots of numbers that all contradict each other... Not much help.

1. Leads me to the question: with the removal of guns, would the rate of people killed really decrease ?

It probably would decrease, not because the would-be murdurers have realized the error of their way, but the rate would decrease because there would no longer be the accidents that we have now. Wow, I said it. I said that if guns were taken away that the death rate would decrease. This does NOT mean that I think guns are bad and they should be taken away, I still don't think it is worth it. If someone doesn't like the amount of freedom here, then they are free to move to a 'better' country. Sorry, but death by guns still make a very small percentage of death in the United States.

One of the many sites I ran across, this one seems to sum it all up nicely with a break down of age groups (for 2002):
http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

What do you think?

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

I posted about the killings in Germany this morning, and the killing in Alabama a little later -- see my posts above. That is 25 people killed more or less randomly, that might have been prevented by avoiding the access to guns -- legal ones, in both cases, I think. This comes back to what I wrote earlier:

We must strike a balance between the right that all of us must have: to live without the threat of anybody else shooting us -- and the right/privilege of anybody who wants to own a gun.

A gun is designed to shoot a projectile, and it is intended to be used to shoot things. If you want to own a gun, you should be able to justify why you want it, and how you are going to safeguard it -- and these reasons must outweigh the chances of something going wrong; resulting in harm to someone else.

All good laws work like that: they must apply to all situations, and they must balance between different effects, and between the various rights that all of us must have.

If you want to have a gun, then we have to be able to prevent an insane person or a criminal from also getting a gun.
If you have a gun, we have to prevent it from falling into the hands of someone else who doesn't meet the same criteria that you had to meet.
We need to try and prevent the presence of a gun from enabling a crime of passion -- people tend to think that if they have a gun, that they can use it to enforce their will on someone else; and this can mean harming that other person.

Once guns are omnipresent, it becomes a whole other issue.