KINGARTHUR'S PROFILE

author=Adon237
What the hell? One person dead is not the same as 10 people dead. It's not like hundreds of people normally die from these types of things.
also the arguments now seem a little repetitive

I think you misread what I wrote, 1 person dead == 10 people dead because someone died, there's no room for further debate on the matter beyond this fact. Someone could stab 10 people with a knife while another shoots 1 person with a gun, or someone could stab 1 person with a knife while another shoots 10 people with a gun, it makes absolutely makes no difference after all is said and done because someone just died there. It's completely unacceptable whichever way you slice the pie. Now, are you going to ban just guns, ban both guns and knives (and other potential weapons), or go address the issue of murderers themselves?

Or, going on a long shot, are you implying that there's a certain number of acceptable deaths in a murder before it becomes unacceptable? Such a thought seems a dangerous one to hold, personally.

KingArthur, you can't argue that the easy availability of guns made this mass murder happen. I mean, they probably walked in and out of the 'gun store'. Practically anyone who meets to extremely easy requirements to purchase one can do this.

If it wasn't guns, the guy could have just as easily chosen some other form of weapon implement and went on a killing spree with that instead. The end result is ultimately the same because the psycho remains a psycho and nothing is done to address that, people will die at his hands one way or the other eventually.

Also, if we 'take these naughty boys to the shrink', what is the purpose of guns afterward? For your average human being to protect themselves against a zombie-alien monster invasion? (probably)

The same reason that countries keep standing military forces in times of peace: To act as a deterrent to anyone who might possibly bear ill will. Crime will occur at some point, we can't possibly prevent 100% of crimes from ever occuring, thus I believe a person has a right to obtain some kind of weapon if they feel they require it to safeguard their livelihood. An outsider can't speak lightly of the matter either, for all you know the guy feeling endangered might really be living in a legitimately dangerous environment that would warrant some kind of weapon.

Plus in the case of the USA, the Constitution specifically grants citizens the right to bear arms and to allow use of said arms within the bounds of law such as for self-defense. The Second Amendment stems from a general distrust in central governments resulting largely from the days of the Colonial period when civilians were ordered to house British soldiers in their homes at their expense, among other overbearing actions taken by the British government. The Second Amendment has deep roots with America's history and it's most definitely not something that someone can point to lightly and say "you're wrong, make guns illegal".

Besides that, deeming civilian ownership of guns illegal and prohibited is an obvious breach of the US Constitution and cannot stand as law under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court unless the Constitution itself is amended. Such a move however implies a stronger central government and a weaker public, which is something most Americans do not view with much pleasure in general.

also you should ready liberty's post one more time and consider some things before you post once more

Not sure what you're suggesting here. The fact she mentioned no one was shot to death? That really doesn't matter as long as the fact remains that murders occur, a person dead is a person dead.

and sure there is no reason to ban smaller, less powerful weapons that aren't as capable of as much murder as the weapons that man used
and will you ever get the message through to people who are that insane anyway?

A gun can kill a person just as easily as any physical object imaginable, crying for gun control as an answer to mass murders is the same as suggesting we ban every single object that can possibly be used to kill someone; to say otherwise is contradictory and a double standard.

Honestly, the whole point I'm trying to convey here is that simply shouting that guns are responsible for mass murders and that that gun control is the end-all-be-all answer to mass murders is ignorant and irresponsible. Anyone who does so is simply using guns as a scapegoat and trying to run from the responsibility of creating and maintaining a society that discourages mass murderers from appearing and disciplining those that do appear.

If you really want to prevent mass murders from happening, the proper way to address it is to ask why the murderer went on the killing spree and then look to properly face it head on. What was his motive? Why was he motivated so? Did he have a less-than-ideal educational background or childhood? Did he follow a problematic philosophy or belief? Did no one pick up on any dangerous signs the murderer might have been showing? Were there other problematic people around him (peer pressure)?

These questions and a whole lot more are what we should truly be asking instead of crying for stricter gun control if we want to properly address the issue of mass murders and murders in general; you can remove all the guns you want but the murderer will still kill people unless the murderer himself is addressed.

Now I ask you: Are you willing to face the problem head on and properly address any possible flaws in society that led to this crime (including but not limited to gun control)? Or are you going to take the easy way out and place all the blame on guns?

But why ban guns specifically? I can kill people just as easily with a car as I can with a gun, I can pick up a knife and kill someone just as easily as I can with a gun. If you're going to ban guns, ban cars too, ban knives as well, and while we're at it why don't we ban every single implement that can be potentially used in some fashion to harm people?

The core problem with crying for gun control everytime shootings like this occur is that banning guns don't solve the core problem of murderers themselves. Do you really think a murderer's going to give two shits about whether it's illegal to obtain guns or even obtain a gun at all?

If we want to prevent mass shootings and mass murders, we need to deal with the murderers, not the tools they use. Ultimately, I can kill someone with my bare fists if I truly wanted to; are you going to ban me from using my hands too?

author=Jude

author=sbester
My issue is with gun laws, not with how the police are handling the crime.

This is a cultural problem, not a gun control one.

This. Guns are always used as scapegoats to blame someone/something when shootings occur, but those who cry for gun control in these instances completely forget that guns don't kill, people do.

Hypothetically, if I really, really, really wanted to murder someone and I didn't have access to a gun I could just as easily pick up a common kitchen knife and go stabbing. The end result is the same and removing guns hasn't solved the core problem of there being murderers.

tl;dr: Guns are just tools, any tool is either great or horrible depending on how you use it.

author=kentona

author=Sauce
I'm not familiar with alternatives and regulations being talked about for gun control, but I will say this...

Anyone who thinks that civilians shouldn't own guns has never lived in a city where their home is legitimately threatened by armed burglary. The vulnerability is palpable in some places. Not saying anyone here thinks that, just that I've heard it elsewhere from rich, sheltered, naive suburban peoples.

how does owning a gun help here?

It's always nice to have a weapon to fight with if you're threatened, though whether you can make use of that weapon is a different matter entirely.

Plus it acts as a deterrent. Do you really want to rob that house where the guy living there potentially has a gun ready to blast you as soon as you break in?

Not sure what there is to talk about, this is outright illegal, a clear invasion of privacy, and should be reported to the appropriate authorities.