It probably ends up being a trade-off. High gun ownership will lead to a decrease in petty theft and non-violent crime, but it will increase damage dealt by nut-jobs with a grudge against society and nothing to lose.
Printable View
It probably ends up being a trade-off. High gun ownership will lead to a decrease in petty theft and non-violent crime, but it will increase damage dealt by nut-jobs with a grudge against society and nothing to lose.
Really? The kid who took a gun and shot 17 people was the problem all along? ...yes... it all makes sense now...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Well then, make my day, Why did this happen? Did he go on a rampage because he enjoyed "quake" a little too much? In any european country or frankly in any country besides the U.S.A its extremely difficult to find a gun and if you ever found one in a highschool it would make the news. If America had the same views on guns as, oh say...any other country as developed as america then things like this would be way less likely to happen and far easier to prevent.
Well one easy way to solve the gun problem is to raise the prices of bullets.1 bullet for 5,000 bucks.That way when we see someone get shot up we can say "damn he must've done something ti get 10 bullets in him.50 grand tsk. tsk."
Seriously though i doubt this will happen.
All problems are based rootly on the human.
Guns may make it easier for violent crimes to happen, but they also can add a form of security. It isn't the gun that is wrong, it is the person using it.
However video games of shooting types and such can be an outlet rather then a cause. Some people use those games to relieve stress so that they don't get mad and attack someone. So this is also not a cause although in certian individuals in may be a minor influence.
Music, Interests, etc.. all only play minor roles, what brings this all to head is what happen's in that person's life. lets say the bullying could have pushed him to need to do something, he then relizes that yes, he can get a gun. And if he shots someone it would get rid of the people, and who can he blame? anyone different then him.
The root still goes down to the bottom, the human.
So basically if we didn't have people who are so unaccepting and nasty to others, we would likely have much less school shootings or none at all. Some people really take those school "cliques" way to seriousally. I mean "ugggh".
You folks act like people haven't been killing each other with rocks and sticks for a couple thousand years before anyone ever thought of a gun.
Who do I blame? Of course, I blame the kid--he murdered 17 people! The root cause of violent crime isn't guns, it's violent criminals--simple common sense. He went on a rampage because he was plain and simply nuts. And his parents, behind him, take most of the blame--partly for raising a kid who was worse than a waste of oxygen, and partly for not noticing when their kid started goose-stepping around the house or whatever else he was doin'.
Likewise, you act as if making guns illegal would stop people from having them, buying them, or even making them. Yeah, that worked so good with alcohol and drugs, let's just extend it a bit to cover our basic rights too!
Yes, bullying sucks. Yes, bullying does happen. Yes, it is indeed hard to live with. But if your reaction to a bully is to kill people, then there is something seriously wrong with your head--whether you do it with an Uzi or a big rock.
Also, let me note....
Before the 1950's, you could mail-order guns. Didn't matter if you were a felon, a mental-patient, a minor, whatever--just mail in your money, and you could get a gun mailed to you, and nobody would know.
Before the 1920's, nobody kept records of that stuff. It didn't matter if you were six, you could walk into a store and buy a gun.
So why weren't nutcases shooting up their schools back then?
Actually, the Thompson Sub-Machine Gun could be ordered through the Sears-Robuck catalog. Yes, the "Tommy Gun". Was there gun violence? Of course. Were there kids bringing in their parents' guns to school and killing half a classroom? Hell no. Because parents raised their kids better back then.
And along that line, let me note the Valentine's Day Massacre, from back in the days when you could have all the guns you wanted.
Capone's gang had four people break into a meeting of seven of his rivals--two were dressed as policemen and two others flashed badges and pretended to be plainclothes cops. They lined the rivals up against a wall, and then shot and killed them all. Predictably enough, a crowd gathered around, and the two 'cops' handcuffed the 'plainclothes officers'. Then then stepped outside with their 'prisoners', all four got into a car, and they escaped.
This was a shock to the nation. People were absolutely stunned, and the uproar was intense. It was one of the leading factors in Prohibition--this event changed our Constitution.
Four gang members shot and killed seven rival gang members.... would this even make the news today? Would anybody care, so long as they weren't caught in the cross-fire?
It's clear that making guns harder to obtain (harder to legally obtain, at least) has not made us safer.
Look at this, one of his works.
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/195194
...
You should step outside the U.S. some time. It might make it alot clearer.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
In Iraq, every home has an AK47. They didn't have much gun violence at all amongst themselves. Other than Shiite-Sunni-Kurd disputes, you didn't find gang killings, you didn't find muggings, you didn't find school shootings (hell, you barely found schools).Quote:
Originally Posted by Destai
Firearms are extremely easy to obtain in many, many places, and that has certainly not made extreme amounts of gun violence in those areas.
(Please excuse Operation Iraqi Freedom and Coalition Forces from the situation in Iraq. I'm talking pre-war.)
Once again, I stick to the fact that gun control laws only work for people that obey laws. Criminals (who are the people who would be using guns to commit crimes, by the way) wouldn't follow gun control laws anyway--they don't apply, so they wouldn't help. You won't see somebody say "Dammit, I forgot to get a new registration for this pistol, I guess I'll have to wait another week to murder somebody."
Iraq doesnt count :greenie: lol11
I was just using Iraq as example of an area with a high availability of firearms. And you can't say the Iraqi people are less violent than Americans... I'm sure there are many regions where guns are easy to get that don't have the school shootings and such that America does.
What regions developed as Amerca are as easy to get a gun in? Yeah getting rid of the guns now that theyre in the country is a very tricky business but theyve got to do something. Start slow at getting rid of them by adding restrictions to there use and availability of guns and ownership. They have to start somehow because the situation right now is ridiculous.
is america really that bad when it comes to our gun laws. some of you who are not from the US make it seem like gun violence is rampant. Its not. alot of people own guns, but like said before but accual crimes commited where someone is shot and killed in america is really low considering our population. Of course we are gonna have more shootings than the UK, we have a bigger population, we have 5 times the population of the UK(estimated at 59.6 million) and and 9times the population of canada(estimated at 31.2million). See, its your contries that accually over aggerate the gun thing. We simply have more crimes involving guns because we have more people. and some said that if someone brought a gun to school in their country it would be on the news because its not common, well....DUH, obviously its not common here either if its all over the news here like we've never seen it.
God america must seem really bad to countries with smaller population. hell we have 290million people. of course crime is gonna be worse.
heck we have more people in california than in all of canada. now i bet if we took the total number of gun crimes in cali, and compared it to canada, it would be about the same.