But if no one has guns who can shoot anyone??

It will naturally reduce the level of violence, sorry I can't see it any other way... Guns are made to KILL people or things, there is no other purpose, take them away and there is one less way for people to KILL people.

I think that the US is too far gone to make any changes though, and to get every single gun back would be nearly impossible and it would never happen.

diamuerto said: If you get that trapped in fiction to the point of hurting someone I think it's more an issue of mental state. A person like that could have read a Stephen King book and done something crazy. What would we do then, ban all his books.

Exactly.  I can give a counter-example to all of the ones Thompson likes to list (of course, he assumes with all of his examples that because they have Doom or Counter-Strike on their computer, they were "obsessed" with them and used them to "train" for their rampages).  What about the Unabomber, a guy who lived alone in a shack?  The guy who attacked and killed two Capitol Police officers in the U.S. Capitol on July 24, 1998 was a loner with mental problems who lived in a hut in Montana.

OriGin said: I think the whole argument towards guns in America is surrounded by the people's 'right to bear arms' which has been part of the constitution for a very long time has it not? (I'm not from US so don't hold me to that one).

It is part of it.  The Right to Bear Arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment.  The first 10 amendments to our Constitution, called the Bill of Rights, were adopted at the same time as the Constitution itself, and include the most-famous First Amendment (free speech, religion, media) all the way to the sadly ignored/trashed Tenth Amendment (the federal government has no more powers than those delegated to it by the Constitution).

Hus said: ^ its more a freedon thing and not letting dumb retards fuck those freedoms up for us.  they baned Pitbulls in toronto, becasue dumb trash had them. So now the Dumb trash can move to rottwailers and the gov will ban them to.... the dumb trash moves to German shepards... and once agian a breed is baned. is the dog a problem or the dumnass owners ?

 They ban breeds of dogs?  I'm sorry, but that's just stupid...

 I don't really like pitbulls, but seriously...if someone's going to have a crazy dog, the breed isn't really an issue...there's lots of crazy dog breeds out there.

OriGin said: But if no one has guns who can shoot anyone?? It will naturally reduce the level of violence, sorry I can't see it any other way... Guns are made to KILL people or things, there is no other purpose, take them away and there is one less way for people to KILL people. I think that the US is too far gone to make any changes though, and to get every single gun back would be nearly impossible and it would never happen.

 no gun but the nutcase is still there.

 whtas to stop him from chaining a roon fool of people closed and setting it on fire ?

 home made napalm... home made bomb. 

Hus said: no gun but the nutcase is still there. whtas to stop him from chaining a roon fool of people closed and setting it on fire ? home made napalm... home made bomb.

Their are two problems with this argument.

1. It's a GUN! It's sole purpose is to kill (people or animals),

2. No one argues the fact that you can't walk into a store in the states and by a rocket launcher or a nuclear warhead, because everyone realizes that there are lines that shouldn't be crossed, and limits to the destructive power a person should be able to posses. And for many people, guns fall on the other side of that line. Why? see point 1.

The idea that without a gun, someone will just do the exact same thing with some other weapon is silly. Gun's are incredible in their capacity to distance a person from the act of killing, while at the same time making it a much more efficient process.  You can shoot someone from the window of a car as you drive by without ever seeing the look on their face.  Not all murders are premeditated and carefully planned, there are no drive by stabbings, and no one was ever killed because a stray baseball bat flew through their living room wall. 

BenKenobi88 said: Hus said: ^ its more a freedon thing and not letting dumb retards fuck those freedoms up for us. they baned Pitbulls in toronto, becasue dumb trash had them. So now the Dumb trash can move to rottwailers and the gov will ban them to.... the dumb trash moves to German shepards... and once agian a breed is baned. is the dog a problem or the dumnass owners ? They ban breeds of dogs? I'm sorry, but that's just stupid... I don't really like pitbulls, but seriously...if someone's going to have a crazy dog, the breed isn't really an issue...there's lots of crazy dog breeds out there.

 yep they baned them.

alot of countries have similar laws.

 

BenKenobi88 said: They ban breeds of dogs? I'm sorry, but that's just stupid... I don't really like pitbulls, but seriously...if someone's going to have a crazy dog, the breed isn't really an issue...there's lots of crazy dog breeds out there.

As an Ontarian; the province pitbulls were banned in, I'll speak to that. It's actually a fairly complex issue, and has been the subject of much debate in several countries. infact, here's a list of countries, regions and cities that have banned certain breeds of pit bulls.

Place	Ban Status
Springville, Utah[2]	Active
Council Bluffs, Iowa[3]	Active: 2004
Royal City, Washington[4]	Active: 12 Jan, 2007
Denver, Colorado[5]	Active: Banned on 9 May, 2005 (first banned in 1980's)
Ontario, Canada[6]	Active: Banned on 15 October, 2004
Winnipeg, Canada[7]	Active: Banned in 1990
Prince George's County, Maryland[8]	Active: 1996
Shelbyville, California[9]	Proposed: 18 November, 2006
New York City, NY[10]	Proposed: 28 December 2006
Aurora, Colorado[11]	Proposed: 27 September, 2005
Oklahoma[12]	Proposed 21 June, 2005
Youngstown, Ohio[13]	Proposed: 10 January, 1999
Bronx, NY[citation needed]	Active: Banned on 17 January, 2007
Richland, Washington[4]	Proposed: 21 December, 2006
Tupelo, Mississippi[14]	Proposed: 28 September, 2006
Harlem, NY[citation needed]	Active: Banned on 11 January, 2007
Parker, Colorado[15]	Proposed: 17 January, 2006
Queens, NY[citation needed]	Active: Banned on 8 December, 2005
Chicago, Illinois[16]	Proposed: 17 November, 2005
Yonkers, NY	Active: Banned on 3 November, 2006
France[17]	Active: April 30, 1999; Ownership restricted; non-pure-breed animals resembling pit-bulls are to be surgically neutered
Norway	Most Pit Bull variants are illegal since ca. 1980, dogs older than that were allowed to stay with their owners until a natural death.
United Kingdom[18]	Active: 12 August, 1991 (Banned in public places, under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991)

In Ontario, It became a pretty major issue after a string of Pitbull attacks in the province, including at least one child killed. That's what put it in the public sphere. As for the actual rational behind it, there's differing views. Some studies have shown pit bulls are dramatically more likely to bite than other breeds. Certain bans have had some success in lowering dog attacks. Some, like Winnipeg, have not.

Part of the reasoning behind it comes from the fact that pit bulls have been bred over the years specifically for aggression. Yes, a dog is more likely to be violent if it has a crappy owner. But evidence suggests that the effect is multiplied when it's a pit bull. Of course there's also evidence to suggest thats hogwash. It's still pretty early in the pitbull scientific debate realm.

I'm not sure where I fall on the argument. Mostly just because there isn't a scientific concensus on the dog's likely hood of attacks, and because it's too early to tell just how well, if at all, these bans work in the long term.

stof said: Hus said: no gun but the nutcase is still there. whtas to stop him from chaining a roon fool of people closed and setting it on fire ? home made napalm... home made bomb. Their are two problems with this argument. 1. It's a GUN! It's sole purpose is to kill (people or animals), 2. No one argues the fact that you can't walk into a store in the states and by a rocket launcher or a nuclear warhead, because everyone realizes that there are lines that shouldn't be crossed, and limits to the destructive power a person should be able to posses. And for many people, guns fall on the other side of that line. Why? see point 1. The idea that without a gun, someone will just do the exact same thing with some other weapon is silly. Gun's are incredible in their capacity to distance a person from the act of killing, while at the same time making it a much more efficient process. You can shoot someone from the window of a car as you drive by without ever seeing the look on their face. Not all murders are premeditated and carefully planned, there are no drive by stabbings, and no one was ever killed because a stray baseball bat flew through their living room wall.

 its a gun, used for out door activity but in the hands of a moron it becomes a tool of mass murder.

 killing a large crowd is rather easy on a campus.

just wait for some campus concert or sports game, pack a car full of explosives/gas and drive it into the packed stands killin OHH so many people.

ohh drive by... give me a bottle and some gas, plenty psychotic fun with no need for a gun.

 will you ban cars and gas stations to stop nutjobs from doing it ?

  

Hus said: ^ its more a freedon thing and not letting dumb retards fuck those freedoms up for us.

One freedom stands always against another freedom. In this case stands the freedom to own fireguns against the freedom to live in a increased level of security. Different countries have made different decisions about which of these freedoms is more important.