HAS ANYONE HEARD OF THE SHOOTING AT THE PITTSBURGH LA FITNESS?

post=91644
I find it hilarious that you think ignoring the possible mindset of such people is a legitimate way to look at this topic.

This argument is based on a lie. Either that or you wildly misinterpreted what I meant. There is a difference between "speculating as to the inner workings of his mind" and BEING ABLE TO PREDICT his actions based on the availability or non-availability of guns. By saying he would have a 100% of not murdering someone should he not have access to a gun, you tried to do the latter, which IS ridiculous. Nice try, but fail. Think before you run with your snap misunderstandings of other peoples' statements.

Of course we look at the psychological reason as to why people murder. If I'm sitting here saying that we shouldn't blame guns like you do, what the hell else is there to blame? The murderer. Don't try and create these strawman arguments.

Wait, who's not blaming the murderer? It's not like if you look at guns as a factor in this you're saying the murderer isn't at fault.

I agree about the culture thing (Japan and America being really different). Guns have a strong part in American culture and have for hundreds of years. That's why gun control is important, to try and change that aspect of culture.

When a celeb gets caught with drugs in Japan, they get fired from their celebrity company and their career is over. All commercials, movies, music is pulled. It's intense.

bahleted

Game: It's nice that you don't blame guns for the actions of murderers. Yay someone agrees with me on that.

But don't go overboard there... more violence is not the answer to violence. Any true christian knows that righteous judgement is not in man's hands.

But you are spot on regarding the impossibility of totally eliminating guns from the hands of anyone in America who really really wants to get one.

So you'd see a proportionate increase in non-gun-related murders.

The problem with relying on taking guns away from people is that it takes responsibility off of people to not decide to kill.

If no one ever CHOSE to murder someone, we could all be armed with nuclear bombs and no one would ever use them to murder someone.

Terrorists would disagree.

I'm pretty sure that that headless guy who got butchered on a bus in Canada would have disagreed also.

post=91719
And keeping things out of people hand's when there are a million illegal ways to get them is near impossible.

Same thing with drugs now, and alcohol back during the Prohibition.

Your arguments seems to have two points that you continue to repeat.

1) If guns are controlled better, only the "good guys" can't get them.

2) People will be violent no matter what, we have to have guns to fight against them.

(If I'm wrong that these are your arguments, then you can write off what comes next.)

Argument number one is based upon an assumption of poor gun control. It's also based upon gun control in the form of only government regulation. Neither of these need to be the case.

Argument number two is also is mistaken. There are measures people and governments can take to decrease violence in a society. The problem is they're very complex and the results are hard to see and measure. Despite this, it is possible and has been done.

Has anyone heard the story of the 72 year old man in Harlem who fought off four burglars with a shotgun?
They came into his place of business and assaulted an employee and demanded money so he took out a shotgun and fired twice, killing two and injuring the other two.

Get this, his gun wasn't registered and they never brought any charges on him. The man is a hero with an illegal firearm.